On Monday 21 July 2008 17:42, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:24:46PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > On Monday 21 July 2008 13:27, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Mon,21.Jul.08, 03:55:20, Dominik Dera wrote:
> > > > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > > > and the blacklisting
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:24:46PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> On Monday 21 July 2008 13:27, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > On Mon,21.Jul.08, 03:55:20, Dominik Dera wrote:
> > > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > > and the blacklisting won't work if the module is in your initrd! You
> > > > at least nee
On Monday 21 July 2008 13:27, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mon,21.Jul.08, 03:55:20, Dominik Dera wrote:
> > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > and the blacklisting won't work if the module is in your initrd! You
> > > at least need to run update-initramfs and you would probably be
> > > advised to un
On Mon,21.Jul.08, 03:55:20, Dominik Dera wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > and the blacklisting won't work if the module is in your initrd! You
> > at least need to run update-initramfs and you would probably be
> > advised to unpack one to make *sure* it's not in there...
> This pro
;>> given up
>>
>> You might need a little more patience using Linux ;-).
>
> but once it's working, it'll work so well for so long that you'll
> forget how to fix it if it comes up again...
>
>>
>>> Nothing seems to be working.
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 02:07:17AM +, Jamin Davis wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
>> and the blacklisting won't work if the module is in your initrd! You
>> at least need to run update-initramfs and you would probably be
>> advised to unpack one to make *sure* it's not in there...
>
>
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
and the blacklisting won't work if the module is in your initrd! You
at least need to run update-initramfs and you would probably be
advised to unpack one to make *sure* it's not in there...
Good point. But if the blacklist did work there'd be no need to check
th
but once it's working, it'll work so well for so long that you'll
forget how to fix it if it comes up again...
>
>> Nothing seems to be working. I still get the same error message
>> "8139cp :03:08.0: This (id 10ec:8139 rev 10) is not an 8139C+
>> compatible chip&
have
given up
You might need a little more patience using Linux ;-).
Nothing seems to be working. I still get the same error message
"8139cp 0000:03:08.0: This (id 10ec:8139 rev 10) is not an 8139C+
compatible chip"
You can blacklist the 8139cp module in /etc/modprobe.d/blac
> Hardware: AMD64 3800+
> OS: Debian testing
>
> *Mar 1 10:50:52 margoullat kernel: ata4: SATA link down (SStatus 0
> SControl 310)
> Mar 1 10:50:52 margoullat kernel: 8139cp :03:08.0: This (id
> 10ec:8139 rev 10) is not an 8139C+ compatible chip
> Mar 1 10:50:52
I still get the same error message
"8139cp 0000:03:08.0: This (id 10ec:8139 rev 10) is not an 8139C+
compatible chip"
There seems to be a bug with the driver 8139too with realtek ethernet card.
http://groups.google.fr/group/comp.os.linux.hardware/browse_thread/thread/7cc2d557544f3228/ca
On 01/03/2008, stephane lepain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have had this error message coming up every time I start my PC where
> it seems to be searching for the right driver. The problem is that it
> takes a while at start time for my box to switch from "8139cp" to "8139too"
> Is t
10:50:52 margoullat kernel: 8139cp 0000:03:08.0: This (id
10ec:8139 rev 10) is not an 8139C+ compatible chip
Mar 1 10:50:52 margoullat kernel: 8139cp :03:08.0: Try the
"8139too" driver instead.
Mar 1 10:50:52 margoullat kernel: 8139too Fast Ethernet driver 0.9.28*
--
T
13 matches
Mail list logo
