Chris Ross <cross+netbsd@distal.com> writes:

> Nathan J. Williams wrote:
>> Are these really scanners that have to use the uscanner(4) interface
>> instead of ugen(4)? Using ugen(4) entirely would be better, and it
>> seems like problems with that (in either ugen or SANE) are what need
>> to be addressed.
>
>    Then, the question becomes "Why is there a uscanner device?".
> I don't know the answer to that, but adding support for an
> ioctl() to it, since it already exists, doesn't seem like
> too bad of an idea...  (*shrug*)

Well, it's duplicating what ugen does. The man page for uscanner(4)
says that it's for compatibility with a Linux driver, but the Linux
folks punted it ages ago (and it's been suggested that we follow
along). So I would suggest not putting more resources into anything
but ensuring that we can punt it as well. One such resource would be
using your scanner with ugen(4) instead uscanner(4) and confirming
that it works.

     - Nathan