As to lspci, I did take your advice but the results seemed to tell
me nothing useful. Here they are is. Maybe, you will see something
interesting:
>From 2.2.20-idepci
00:10.0 Ethernet controller: Accton Technology Corporation EN-1216 Ethernet Adapter
(rev 11)
Subsystem: Accton Technology Corporation: Unknown device 2242
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 64, IRQ 11
I/O ports at 1c00
Memory at e8000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable)
Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2
>From 2.4.18 (compiled by me)
00:10.0 Ethernet controller: Accton Technology Corporation EN-1216 Ethernet Adapter
(rev 11)
Subsystem: Accton Technology Corporation: Unknown device 2242
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 64, IRQ 11
I/O ports at 1c00 [size=256]
Memory at e8000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1K]
Expansion ROM at <unassigned> [disabled] [size=128K]
Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2
I still tend to think the problem is with what the configuration is doing
*after* tulip gets set up --- right where I would have thought things would
be running the same for both kernel images. Can't claim I have much
relevant experience to support that intuition though.
J Adrian Zimmer
www.ossm.edu/~azimmer
azimmer -- dot -- ossm.edu
>>> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/29/03 10:13AM >>>
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 09:35, Adrian Zimmer wrote:
> No, no; ifconfig says the interface is up and running with both
> kernel images. Obviously *a* tulip module is installed (one way
> or the other). Happens to be two different ones.
>
> I compiled tulip in to 2.4.18 whereas I don't know how the prepackaged
> 2.2.20-idepci worked. I'd kinda like to try the driver that shipped with
> 2.2.20 but I don't know how to answer configuration questions to get it
> insted of the driver I now have compiled into 2.4.18.
>
> I don't know the driver in 2.4.18 is malfunctioning; I know only
> four things that seem relevant:
> ifconfig is happy;
> netstat only reports success with 2.2.20-idepci not with my
> compiled 2.4.18;
> the base addresses used by the two tulip modules are different;
Maybe this is an issue for the tulip*.c maintainer?
You've looked at lspci, right?
>
> the configuration files the two kernel images are booting under
> are the same.
>
> (Of course, the configuration files ask for different things because of
> what they find in the /proc directories but that is a fact I don't know
> how to exploit in tracking down my problem.)
>
> J Adrian Zimmer
> www.ossm.edu/~azimmer
> azimmer -- dot -- ossm.edu
>
>
> >>> Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/28/03 10:47PM >>>
> Adrian Zimmer wrote:
> > with 2.2.20 I get
> >
> > eth0: Accton EN1217/EN2242 (ADMtek Comet) rev 17 at 0xc6022000, 00:D0:59:24:04:C0,
> > IRQ 11.
> > eth0: MII transceiver #1 config 3000 status 786d advertising 01e1.
> >
> > whereas with 2.4.18 I get
> >
> > eth0: ADMtek Comet rev 17 at 0x1c00, 00:D0:59:24:04:C0, IRQ 11.
>
> Googling and then looking at the tulip_core.c driver shows that the
> tulip driver is used with this card.
>
> Did you compile the tulip driver into your kernel? Or did you compile
> it as a module? If as a module did you load the tulip driver in
> /etc/modules? If you are using the Debian tuned kernels then
> everything is compiled as a module and you will need to include tulip
> in /etc/modules.
>
> Bob
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian |
| because I hate vegetables!" |
| unknown |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
