Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 72604
USB patch to allow Olympus digital cameras to work
Last modified: 2007-04-18 12:46:00 EDT
Several Olympus USB digital cameras, including D-520 Zoom and D-150, do not work under linux because the cameras send invalid checksum down the wire. The cameras work fine under MS Windows because it doesn't check this field. A more detailed description of the problem is at http://home.earthlink.net/~ebrombaugh/d150.html I'm attaching the short patch availible at the above page.
Created attachment 72884 [details] Patch for broken Olympus USB digital cameras
From: Matthew Dharm <mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net> Date: 2001-06-15 22:07:46 I'm sending this message so it will be picked up into the various archives and web search engines. Apparently, Olympus makes a camera with USB capability that identifies itself as the C-1 -- Vendor=07b4 and ProdID=0102 This device is advertised with as a mass-storage compliant device, but it is not. It sends malformed status packets which look to the driver like a multiple-bit error on the wire, and thus does not work with the standard Linux driver. Reports indicate that the Windows drivers do not perform the same, recommended, checks for data integrity that Linux does, so it does not notice this problem. I'm not planning on merging a fix for this into any future kernel. The level of deviation from the published specification is too high. The amount of shock and amazement on the DWG mailing list when I brought this to their attention was amazing. However, if you would like your device to work, then you simply need to go into drivers/usb/transport.h and change the #define US_BULK_CS_SIGN from 0x53425355 to 0x55425355. Note, however, that this may disable all your other USB storage devices -- all devices that use the bulk-only transport will be affected. Matt Dharm
<zaitcev> gregkh: Are you going to propagate Olympus fix to 2.4? <gregkh> zaitcev: yeah, I will after 2.4.21 is out, is that ok? <zaitcev> gregkh: Also, was it your intention to overrule Matt Dharm's opposition in Olympus case, or I missed his agreement? <gregkh> zaitcev: no, I didn't know he objected to it. Hm... The patch came from vojtech so that's two distros against him :) <zaitcev> Not that I mind the patch, really. <gregkh> zaitcev: I don't either, we have hacks to get other broken hardware to work... <zaitcev> Anyway, if you promise to overrule his opposition, I may claim "upstream buy-in" and ship the patch. <gregkh> hm, looks like I didn't add the patch to the 2.4 tree, I'll go do that now... <gregkh> zaitcev: ship it, I'll overrule :) <zaitcev> Weee
2.4.20-16.7+
An errata has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2003-187.html