 |
|
|
|
Next: [Samba] Word and Excel files are read-only when o..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:20 am
Post subject: uvcvideo module compatibility
Archived from groups: comp>os>linux>hardware (more info?)
|
|
|
I have a Thinkpad X61s, running sidux using stock kernel
2.6.23.12-slh-smp-2. I'm trying to get a Logitech QuickCam Pro for
Notebooks running on it, and it seems that given the kernel, I must
compile a uvcvideo module.
I went to linuxtv.org/hg/~pinchartl/uvcvideo and downloaded
uvcvideo-bff77ec33116.tar.gz, put it in /usr/src, unarchved it, ran #
make all and # make install. There did not seem to be any errors.
However, when I try to register the module (# modprobe uvcvideo) I'm
warned that all config files require .conf: /etc/modprobe.d/kgemu and
i2c. It will be ignored in a future release. I'm not sure what this
means. However, there was a fatal error: "Error inserting uvcvideo
/lib/modules/2.6.23.12-slp-smp-2/kernel/drivers/media/video/uvc/uvcvideo/uvcvideo.ko.:
Unknown symbol in module, or unknown parameter (see dmesg).
In dmesg I see:
uvcvideo: disagrees about version of symbol v4l_compat_translate_ioctl
uvcvideo: unknown symbol v4l_compat_translate_ioctl
and the same for these other variables: video_devdata, symbol
video_unregister_device, video_device_alloc, video_usercopy,
video_device_release.
Am I correct to infer that the driver I'm trying to register is not
compatible with the kernel version? If not, I'm not sure what to do (I
can't compile a new kernel version).
If there's no easy resolution of the problem, would someone recommend a
webcam and driver that has comparable quality to the QuickCam Pro and
will definitely work with the stock 2.6.23.12-slh-smp-2?
--
Haines Brown, KB1GRM |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: May 03, 2006
Posts: 66
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:20 am
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Haines Brown <brownh DeleteThis @teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
> I went to linuxtv.org/hg/~pinchartl/uvcvideo and downloaded
> uvcvideo-bff77ec33116.tar.gz, put it in /usr/src, unarchved it, ran #
> make all and # make install. There did not seem to be any errors.
> However, when I try to register the module (# modprobe uvcvideo) I'm
> warned that all config files require .conf: /etc/modprobe.d/kgemu and
> i2c. It will be ignored in a future release. I'm not sure what this
> means.
You can ignore the "config files require .conf" for now (it's not relevant
to the problem at hand).
> However, there was a fatal error: "Error inserting uvcvideo [...]
Is it possible that you have not removed the old modules from
/lib/modules? Try this as root:
for F in `find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -name 'uvcvideo*'`
do mv "$F" "$F".`date +'%Y-%m-%d'`; done
Now re-run your make install:
cd /where/ever/
make install
Now update the modules list and try to reload the uvcvideo module:
depmod -a
modprobe uvcvideo
> If there's no easy resolution of the problem, would someone recommend a
> webcam and driver that has comparable quality to the QuickCam Pro and
> will definitely work with the stock 2.6.23.12-slh-smp-2?
I don't think you have told us the actual version of the QuickCam Pro
you're trying to use? Also, is there any chance you can upgrade to (at
least) 2.6.28? I found a significant improvement in the V4L layers here.
I also found that I needed a newer version of the V4L1 compatibility
layer (the kernel provides V4L2 for user-space decoding, but applications
mostly still talk V4L1). You might want to search for a newer v4l1compat
library, and then set this before trying any of your video applications
(change the path appropriately)
export LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libv4l/v4l1compat.so
This lets Skype work happily with my i.t.works webcam (093a:2621 "Pixart
Imaging, Inc.").
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 03, 2009
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Chris Davies <chris-usenet.RemoveThis@roaima.co.uk> writes:
> Is it possible that you have not removed the old modules from
> /lib/modules? Try this as root:
>
> for F in `find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -name 'uvcvideo*'`
> do mv "$F" "$F".`date +'%Y-%m-%d'`; done
I had trouble with this command (syntax error near "done"), although if
I knew how to copy/paste the string in your message from emacs/gnus to
an xterm without a mouse, I might have done better. In any case there is
a .../uvc/uvcvideo.ko, which I suppose I could just delete. That you
didn't simply tell me to do that is the reason I hesitate to do it now.
> I don't think you have told us the actual version of the QuickCam Pro
> you're trying to use?
I didn't realize there were different versions of the Logitech QuickCam
Pro for Notebooks. There's no version number on the device. Neither
lsusb or dmesg after a reconnect conveys that information.
> Also, is there any chance you can upgrade to (at
> least) 2.6.28? I found a significant improvement in the V4L layers here.
I presume the reason is that the driver is built into that kernel and so
the webcam becomes plug-and-play. Is this right?
Haines |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 08, 2009
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:10 pm
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
brownh wrote:
> Chris Davies <chris-usenet RemoveThis @roaima.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Is it possible that you have not removed the old modules from
>> /lib/modules? Try this as root:
>>
>> for F in `find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -name 'uvcvideo*'`
>> do mv "$F" "$F".`date +'%Y-%m-%d'`; done
>
> I had trouble with this command (syntax error near "done"), although if
> I knew how to copy/paste the string in your message from emacs/gnus to
> an xterm without a mouse, I might have done better. In any case there is
> a .../uvc/uvcvideo.ko, which I suppose I could just delete. That you
> didn't simply tell me to do that is the reason I hesitate to do it now.
>
>> I don't think you have told us the actual version of the QuickCam Pro
>> you're trying to use?
>
> I didn't realize there were different versions of the Logitech QuickCam
> Pro for Notebooks. There's no version number on the device. Neither
> lsusb or dmesg after a reconnect conveys that information.
You may find that some manufacturers change critical chipsets for devices
without changing the model or revision of a product. I am aware of this
happening with wireless cards, and webcams. I have learned that sometimes
the USB ID is more important than the manufacturer and model of the product.
>> Also, is there any chance you can upgrade to (at
>> least) 2.6.28? I found a significant improvement in the V4L layers here.
>
> I presume the reason is that the driver is built into that kernel and so
> the webcam becomes plug-and-play. Is this right?
That somewhat depends on what you mean by "plug-and-play." I have been
impressed by the Linux webcam support (I use a UVC webcam), but many
programs don't support V4L2, and sometimes a device driver only supports V4L
(revision 1). Some programs work better than others with particular
webcams, because webcam formats can vary. Some webcam drivers don't support
read(), so only the programs that use mmap() work with those drivers.
I found that Skype worked best with my webcam, and the uvc driver, other
programs crashed, or displayed images I didn't expect. Your experience will
probably vary.
-George |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 16, 2007
Posts: 100
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I demand that brownh may or may not have written...
> Chris Davies <chris-usenet.DeleteThis@roaima.co.uk> writes:
>> Is it possible that you have not removed the old modules from
>> /lib/modules? Try this as root:
>> for F in `find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -name 'uvcvideo*'`
>> do mv "$F" "$F".`date +'%Y-%m-%d'`; done
> I had trouble with this command (syntax error near "done"),
Well... there's an obvious problem there – nested `` don't work well. You
want one of these:
\`uname -r\`
$(uname -r)
$() is better since it's nestable without requiring more \s.
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + At least 4000 million too many people. POPULATION LEVEL IS UNSUSTAINABLE.
Laugh when you can; cry when you must. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 03, 2006
Posts: 66
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:20 pm
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Chris Davies <chris-usenet.RemoveThis@roaima.co.uk> writes:
> Is it possible that you have not removed the old modules from
> /lib/modules? Try this as root:
>
> for F in `find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -name 'uvcvideo*'`
> do mv "$F" "$F".`date +'%Y-%m-%d'`; done
brownh <brownh.RemoveThis@hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
> I had trouble with this command (syntax error near "done") [...]
Yes, sorry about that. Trying to swap between a version that worked in
my specific instance, and one that was general enough to give me useful
results for your machine, I managed to double up my backticks.
Try this instead (which assumes bash as a shell):
for F in $(find /lib/modules/$(uname -r) -name 'uvcvideo*')
do echo "$F"; mv "$F" "$F".$(date +'%Y-%m-%d'); done
I've tweaked it slightly, to list the name of any file it moves out of
the way, so you've a chance of restoring what it's done if you don't
like it.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Chris Davies <chris-usenet.TakeThisOut@roaima.co.uk> writes:
> Chris Davies <chris-usenet.TakeThisOut@roaima.co.uk> writes:
>> Is it possible that you have not removed the old modules from
>> /lib/modules? Try this as root:
> Try this instead (which assumes bash as a shell):
>
> for F in $(find /lib/modules/$(uname -r) -name 'uvcvideo*')
> do echo "$F"; mv "$F" "$F".$(date +'%Y-%m-%d'); done
>
> I've tweaked it slightly, to list the name of any file it moves out of
> the way, so you've a chance of restoring what it's done if you don't
> like it.
Thanks, Chris, the script worked as expected.
The original suggestion was to rerun # make install on skype, but I had
used a debian package for skype version 2.0.0.72-1 that I downloaded
from the Skype website, and so I assume that upgrading my kernel from
the present 2.6.23 to 2.6.26 would be unecessary.
After I renamed the skype uvcvideo module, and uninstalled skype, I
found I found I can't reinstall skype, for in preparation when I run
aptitude update:
Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org sid/main Packages
Sub-process bzip2 returned an error code (2)
I suppose this means that one of the packages being updated is corrupted
and can't be unarchived. Is this error being returned from the debian
archive site, indicating the problem is at that end? I don't know how to
fix this other than using an alternative debian package repository. But
if this doesn't work, it seems I can't install anything, including a
reinstall of skype.
Two questions: a) Is there good reason to abandon Skype's skype-debian
package and compile skype from source?, b) Does it still look like it
might be necessary to update my kernel by getting the 2.6.26 kernel from
backport? None of this can proceed as long as my ability to unarchive
packages is being blocked?
--
Haines Brown, KB1GRM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 08, 2009
Posts: 19
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:20 am
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Haines Brown wrote:
> Chris Davies <chris-usenet.TakeThisOut@roaima.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Chris Davies <chris-usenet.TakeThisOut@roaima.co.uk> writes:
>>> Is it possible that you have not removed the old modules from
>>> /lib/modules? Try this as root:
>
>> Try this instead (which assumes bash as a shell):
>>
>> for F in $(find /lib/modules/$(uname -r) -name 'uvcvideo*')
>> do echo "$F"; mv "$F" "$F".$(date +'%Y-%m-%d'); done
>>
>> I've tweaked it slightly, to list the name of any file it moves out of
>> the way, so you've a chance of restoring what it's done if you don't
>> like it.
>
> Thanks, Chris, the script worked as expected.
>
> The original suggestion was to rerun # make install on skype, but I had
> used a debian package for skype version 2.0.0.72-1 that I downloaded
> from the Skype website, and so I assume that upgrading my kernel from
> the present 2.6.23 to 2.6.26 would be unecessary.
>
> After I renamed the skype uvcvideo module, and uninstalled skype, I
> found I found I can't reinstall skype, for in preparation when I run
> aptitude update:
>
> Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org sid/main Packages
> Sub-process bzip2 returned an error code (2)
>
> I suppose this means that one of the packages being updated is corrupted
> and can't be unarchived. Is this error being returned from the debian
> archive site, indicating the problem is at that end? I don't know how to
> fix this other than using an alternative debian package repository. But
> if this doesn't work, it seems I can't install anything, including a
> reinstall of skype.
>
> Two questions: a) Is there good reason to abandon Skype's skype-debian
> package and compile skype from source?, b) Does it still look like it
> might be necessary to update my kernel by getting the 2.6.26 kernel from
> backport? None of this can proceed as long as my ability to unarchive
> packages is being blocked?
Unless you work for Skype, you will not have the source code. Considering
your question, I assume you do not work for Skype.
In recent times I have found that the Skype package does not work since
upgrading from Ubuntu 8.x to 9.04. I experienced segfaults at first that
seemed to be random, and eventually Skype segfaulted repeatedly on startup.
So, I found that these segfaults were resolved in Ubuntu 9.04 by using a
static version of Skype. I suspect that something significant has changed
in an ABI that Skype depends on.
Debian has somewhat of a history of poorly maintaining proprietary packages
(Skype, nvidia, etc.). They do not include proprietary packages in the
default install, and they remove binary firmware images from the kernel (as
I understand it), which then forces those with the hardware that needs that
firmware to install another package. On the surface this may seem fine, but
it also may lose more users and not benefit Debian/Linux, because while it
might motivate a programmer, it will not motivate a general user. If the
user is trying to get wireless binary blobs, then they may be unable to even
access the Internet to get what they need to have a usable system.
-GPS |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 16, 2007
Posts: 100
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I demand that Haines Brown may or may not have written...
[snip]
> After I renamed the skype uvcvideo module, and uninstalled skype, I found I
> found I can't reinstall skype, for in preparation when I run aptitude
> update:
> Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org sid/main Packages
> Sub-process bzip2 returned an error code (2)
> I suppose this means that one of the packages being updated is corrupted
> and can't be unarchived. Is this error being returned from the debian
> archive site, indicating the problem is at that end?
No and probably.
It's local in as much as the packages file is failing to be decompressed
locally, but probably remote in that one of the US mirrors is serving
corrupted files. (This isn't unknown.)
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + RIPA NOTICE: NO CONSENT GIVEN FOR INTERCEPTION OF MESSAGE TRANSMISSION
Message ends... engage coffee making mode. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 03, 2006
Posts: 66
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:20 pm
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Haines Brown <brownh.RemoveThis@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
> The original suggestion was to rerun # make install on skype, but I had
> used a debian package for skype version 2.0.0.72-1 that I downloaded
> from the Skype website, and so I assume that upgrading my kernel from
> the present 2.6.23 to 2.6.26 would be unecessary.
Not necessarily...
> Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org sid/main Packages
> Sub-process bzip2 returned an error code (2)
Temporarily try a different repository (maybe uk instead of us, for
example). Every so often one of the repositories gets borked and it can
take anything up to a few days for it to right itself.
> I suppose this means that one of the packages being updated is corrupted
> and can't be unarchived.
No. It's almost certainly the repository (or a web proxy that's wrongly
blocking the attempted download).
> Two questions: a) Is there good reason to abandon Skype's skype-debian
> package and compile skype from source?,
No. I'd recommend you stick with the debian package. (It works for me.)
> b) Does it still look like it
> might be necessary to update my kernel by getting the 2.6.26 kernel from
> backport?
Maybe yes. If you can, I'd consider going with that - at least as a
trial option. But the bottom line on the kernel upgrade is whether you
can confirm that you've installed the updated uvc and gspca modules.
Regards,
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 12, 2009
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:40 am
Post subject: Re: uvcvideo module compatibility [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Chris Davies <chris-usenet DeleteThis @roaima.co.uk> writes:
>> Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org sid/main Packages
>> Sub-process bzip2 returned an error code (2)
>
> Temporarily try a different repository (maybe uk instead of us, for
> example). Every so often one of the repositories gets borked and it can
> take anything up to a few days for it to right itself.
>
>
>> I suppose this means that one of the packages being updated is corrupted
>> and can't be unarchived.
>
> No. It's almost certainly the repository (or a web proxy that's wrongly
> blocking the attempted download).
I found this problem arose because I was migrating between machines and
for the intermedia laptop managed to add a debian respository to
sources.list when it was already in .../sources.list.d/debian.list. The
duplication of the address was the problem. That my monitor died on my
main machine and a replacement has still not arrived didn't help,
either. Also, my efforts to run both SATA and SCSI hard disks
simultaneously on my Asus MB failed, and that caused all sorts of
problems. So enabling a webcam with skype must be put on a back burner
this week as I set up a new machine.
>
>
>> Two questions: a) Is there good reason to abandon Skype's skype-debian
>> package and compile skype from source?,
I'll review the situation from the start, given my problem with the
package repository. If I still have a problem after that with the
webcam, I'll install the 2.6.26 kernel.
--
Haines Brown, KB1GRM |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Linux