<div dir="ltr">Well yes, treating these readers as swipe devices does seem awkward. But that was the only way of making it work short of implementing a new recognition algo, which seemed like too much at the time. In fact, the current one is also a 3rd party lib. The authors of libfprint have considered an alternative approach for smaller sensors but there weren't any usable libs (<a href="https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/fprint/libfprint/Imaging_performance/#possiblesolutions">https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/fprint/libfprint/Imaging_performance/#possiblesolutions</a>).<div> </div><div>As for the stitching code, it assumes that frame height is small. A couple of px originally but works for a couple dozen px as well (but not *that* well). 96px is probably too much but you can try tweaking the frame margin. The height needs to be narrow enough for the stitching to work and wide enough to make sure there are no gaps, given the device's "frame rate". But even if that works, we're left with 96px of width which means you really need to make sure you enroll the same area of the finger which you verify...</div><div> </div><div>With a bit of getting used to, my 144x64 scanner works more or less ok for me. Could be better, but still. This is why I decided to keep working on this driver. But then, there's a driver for a 64x64 device (<a href="https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/fprint/libfprint/aes4000/">https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/fprint/libfprint/aes4000/</a>) so why not?</div><div> </div><div> </div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:38 PM Hans de Goede <<a href="mailto:hdegoede@redhat.com" target="_blank">hdegoede@redhat.com</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi, On 23-01-18 22:58, Igor Filatov wrote: > I've updated the driver to support the devices known so far. Please see if it works for you. Please send me your logs if not. I've enabled all commands for all devices (except 0x4031 which I've enabled only on my 0x0907 -- no idea what it does, but the response is 0x01). > > There's a bit mask in each command which you can use to enable/disable commands for a particular device. > > As for calibration, the driver doesn't expect 0x03 because not all devices seem to return 0x03 or 0x01. Instead it will retry *only* if the response is 0x03 and until it's different. > > I've enabled reset & fuse load for my device. Although I haven't seen it done by the original driver, it doesn't seem to hurt. So please see if it cause problems for you. Let's disable it only for devices where it does. > > <a href="https://github.com/iafilatov/libfprint" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/iafilatov/libfprint</a> This works for me with both the 0c16 and 0c26 readers I've access too. But we really need someone (any takers?) to implement a different type of recognition algorithm for these, not using minutia and then not treat them as swipe readers. Basically what we need is some form of image correlation algorithm. Perhaps the stitching code (which does not seem to do a very good job IMHO) can be used, to see if 2 images can be made to mostly overlap with an acceptable shift. Note that when I last looking into this I did a quick duckduckgo search on low resolution fingerprint recognition and there are a number of academic papers on how this can be done using image correlation, so ideally some-one would go and implement something like this. Regards, Hans > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:33 PM TeEmZe <<a href="mailto:timo@teemze.de" target="_blank">timo@teemze.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:timo@teemze.de" target="_blank">timo@teemze.de</a>>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Sadly I won't be able to get the data until next week, as I currently don't have access to the Laptop. I'll notify you as soon as I manage to get the data. > > Regards, > > Timo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hans de Goede [mailto:<a href="mailto:hdegoede@redhat.com" target="_blank">hdegoede@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:hdegoede@redhat.com" target="_blank">hdegoede@redhat.com</a>>] > Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2018 16:14 > To: Sebastien Bechet <<a href="mailto:sebastien.bechet@osinix.com" target="_blank">sebastien.bechet@osinix.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:sebastien.bechet@osinix.com" target="_blank">sebastien.bechet@osinix.com</a>>>; Igor Filatov <<a href="mailto:ia.filatov@gmail.com" target="_blank">ia.filatov@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ia.filatov@gmail.com" target="_blank">ia.filatov@gmail.com</a>>> > Cc: TeEmZe <<a href="mailto:timo@teemze.de" target="_blank">timo@teemze.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:timo@teemze.de" target="_blank">timo@teemze.de</a>>>; <a href="mailto:konachan.700@gmail.com" target="_blank">konachan.700@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:konachan.700@gmail.com" target="_blank">konachan.700@gmail.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:fprint@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank">fprint@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:fprint@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank">fprint@lists.freedesktop.org</a>> > Subject: Re: [fprint] elan patch + poc 0x903 and 0x0C03 > > Hi, > > On 18-01-18 16:03, Sebastien Bechet wrote: > > Thank you Igor. Hans, you can try again with last version. > > Not tested, but looking at the code, it will loop in the calibration, my 2 devices both need a: > > if (result == 0x03) break; > > Directly after the: > > printf("Calibration Status: 0x%x\n", result); > > Line, currently the code only checks for result == 0x03 for the result of the get_cmd_status command, while it should check (for my devices) the result of the get_cmd_calibration command. > > Regards, > > Hans > > > > > > > I also tried to remove reset+fuseload then calibration not working > > anymore for 0x0903. It seems it is a part for calibration (same pdf > > file for reset _and_ calibration or .... reset _then_ calibration?). > > > > <a href="https://github.com/sbechet/elanfp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/sbechet/elanfp</a> > > > > Konata and timo, can you give us width, height, firmware version and > > calibration status using elanfp.c please? > > > > > > > > > > Le jeudi 18 janvier 2018 à 14:02 +0000, Igor Filatov a écrit : > >>> square and seems to contain the image 3 times > >> Could be because convert is hardcoded at 96x96. > >> > >> On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, 12:04 Hans de Goede, <<a href="mailto:hdegoede@redhat.com" target="_blank">hdegoede@redhat.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:hdegoede@redhat.com" target="_blank">hdegoede@redhat.com</a>>> > >> wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 18-01-18 10:48, Sébastien Béchet wrote: > >>>> On 17-01-18 19:21, Igor Filatov wrote: > >>>>> We didn't have the spec before so I had no idea how different > >>> devices worked. Especially given that some commands which worked > >>> fine for me produced errors one other devices. Now that we have the > >>> docs I'll work on adapting the driver. Naturally, any info you have > >>> is welcome and so is any help with testing. > >>>> > >>>> I have done the [synthesis](<a href="https://github.com/sbechet/elanfp/blo" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/sbechet/elanfp/blo</a> > >>> b/master/README.md) about all informations we have a prepare > >>> questions for KT. > >>> > >>> My 0x0c16 id reader has firmware version 1.56, resolution 96x96 > >>> > >>> I also have bought a stand-alone USB reader for when I would find > >>> time to work on this, this has an usb-id of: 0x0c26. > >>> > >>> After aking these changes: > >>> > >>> --- elanfp.c~ 2018-01-18 10:58:59.919912347 +0100 > >>> +++ elanfp.c 2018-01-18 11:01:50.346280668 +0100 > >>> @@ -71,7 +71,8 @@ > >>> (desc.idVendor == 0x04f3) && (desc.idProduct == > >>> 0x0903) || > >>> (desc.idVendor == 0x04f3) && (desc.idProduct == > >>> 0x0907) || > >>> (desc.idVendor == 0x04f3) && (desc.idProduct == > >>> 0x0c03) || > >>> - (desc.idVendor == 0x04f3) && (desc.idProduct == > >>> 0x0c16) ) { > >>> + (desc.idVendor == 0x04f3) && (desc.idProduct == > >>> 0x0c16) || > >>> + (desc.idVendor == 0x04f3) && (desc.idProduct == > >>> 0x0c26) ) { > >>> r0 = 0; > >>> printf("Device with vid %x pid %x found.\n", > >>> desc.idVendor, desc.idProduct); > >>> break; > >>> @@ -156,7 +157,7 @@ > >>> printf("CMD Get Image Size sent\n"); > >>> } > >>> r0 = libusb_bulk_transfer(handle, BULK_EP3_IN, img_buf, 4, > >>> &transferred, 0); > >>> - printf("Width x height = %dx%d\n", img_buf[0], img_buf[2]); > >>> + printf("Width x height = %dx%d\n", (unsigned char)img_buf[0], > >>> (unsigned char)img_buf[2]); > >>> > >>> /* calibration */ > >>> > >>> @@ -180,6 +181,7 @@ > >>> } > >>> r0 = libusb_bulk_transfer(handle, BULK_EP3_IN, &result, > >>> 1, &transferred, 0); > >>> printf("Calibration Status: 0x%x\n", result); > >>> + if (result == 0x03) break; > >>> > >>> r0 = libusb_bulk_transfer(handle, BULK_EP1_OUT, > >>> get_cmd_status, 2, &transferred, 0); > >>> if((r0 == 0) && (transferred == 2)) { > >>> > >>> This one works with the POC too, although for some reason the > >>> generated out.png is square and seems to contain the image 3 times? > >>> > >>> This one has firmware version 1.64, resolution 64x144 and as shown > >>> in the necessary changes this one does report a calibration status > >>> of 0x03 when it is done with the calibration, I think we should add > >>> an extra column for this to the hardware report table. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Hans > </blockquote></div></div>