On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Robert L. Harris wrote: > I have to deal with this also. You need to put some options in /etc/system: > > * Begin Ethernet stuff > * This is to force the hmes into full-duplex > set hme:hme_adv_autoneg_cap=0 > set hme:hme_adv_100T4_cap=0 > set hme:hme_adv_100fdx_cap=1 > set hme:hme_adv_100hdx_cap=0 > set hme:hme_adv_10fdx_cap=0 > set hme:hme_adv_10hdx_cap=0 > * > > That forces 100 full duplex.
Okay, this I already put this on my _Solaris_ boxes, and it works perfectly. But how I can get the same effect for Debian SPARC _Linux_? Regards. Guenter > > > Thus spake Guenter Millahn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Hello community, > > > > I have an Sun SPARC Ultra-80 running Debian/woody together with an older > > switch (LattisSwitch 28115 by Bay Networks). > > The Workstation has a standard hme (happy meal) network card. > > > > Something with the autonegotiation doesn't work, probably because of the > > age of the switch. I have configured 100 Mb/sec full-duplex on the > > switch, but the Debian box falls back to 100 Mb/sec half-duplex. Another > > effect on this box: After a reboot of the switch the connection is down > > until I remove the plug from the switch and plug in it again. > > > > This behaviour doesn't occur on Solaris boxes where I forced 100 Mb/s fdx > > (without the additional kernel configuration parameters the Solaris boxes > > show the same behaviour). > > > > I tried the ethtool command from the sparc-utils package to show and change > > the eth0 parameters: > > > > woodybox:~# /usr/sbin/ethtool eth0 > > Cannot get current device settings: Invalid argument > > woodybox:~# /usr/sbin/ethtool -s eth0 speed 100 duplex full port tp autoneg > > off > > Cannot get current device settings: Invalid argument > > woodybox:~# tail -2 /var/log/messages > > Jul 29 02:09:10 magpie kernel: eth0: Link is up using internal transceiver > > at 100Mb/s, Half Duplex. > > Jul 29 02:09:37 magpie kernel: sys32_ioctl(ethtool:5483): Unknown cmd fd(3) > > cmd(000089ff) arg(effffc60) > > woodybox:~# > > > > What did I wrong? Is there a discrepancy between the manual and the tool? > > Or is the ethtool utility still buggy? (I hope not). > > > > Thank you in advance, > > Guenter
