There is something that bothers me about your stance that there is
something wrong with the driver ... surely this woudl have been exposed
before. Are you the only 486 running a 509? You yourself say that the
same hardware works fine on another machine with the same driver.
This leads me to beli
Donald Becker wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, Wintermute wrote:
> > If I could have found something like
> > this in the FAQ, or even on the driver page it would have saved me so much
> > time spent thinking
>
> Done.
> http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/drivers/3c509.html
> I'm open to suggesti
Donald Becker wrote:
> This indicates a problem with your machine and the udelay() routine.
>
Between them yes.
> It's pretty clear that the udelay() routine isn't being calibrated correctly.
> It should be calibrated when the machine boots.
> This can cause other, less obvious, problems.
>
U
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Wintermute wrote:
> Ok, now for the details. The delay I had to modify was the one at
> id_read_eeprom()
> function. Setting this value in progressive increments of 1000 I reached
> success at
> 5000 usec's of delay.
>
> To be on the safe side I also modified the function
A. M. Varon wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Wintermute wrote:
>
> > Possibly... I'm going to try hacking out the code in the driver to see if I
> > can
> > get a better detection scheme going for my particular hardware.
>
> My one last shot... could you get the latest linux kernel (2.0.32) and
>
Donald Becker wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Wintermute wrote:
>
> > > You didn't include the 'dmesg' output in the attachments. What value is
> > > being detected?
> > >
> >
> > My fault, I forgot to attach it. I will send you several dmesg outputs in
> > my next
> > message so that you have
A. M. Varon wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Wintermute wrote:
>
> > I'm a step ahead (I am really QUICK aren't I?). I reconfigured my BIOS
> > thinking that perhaps something in there was responsible for this problem.
>
> Yes, you are QUICK! :) I have exhausted all possibilities and I am
> mo
George Bonser wrote:
> Ok, try this. do a make menuconfig and unselect all network drivers except
> the EL3. (3c509) and make that one hardcoded (not a module) . Install that
> kernel. Remove all but the minimum number of boards on the motherboard
> needed to boot the system and display boot mes
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Wintermute wrote:
> From: Wintermute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Possible bug or flaw detected.
...
> Attached to this email are applicable files from my Debian Linux 2.0.29
> installation.
> I have compiled 3c509.c with #define EL3_DEBUG 9 to ensur
George Bonser wrote:
> There is something that bothers me about your stance that there is
> something wrong with the driver ... surely this woudl have been exposed
> before. Are you the only 486 running a 509? You yourself say that the
> same hardware works fine on another machine with the same
A. M. Varon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> hmmm, since the cards works with the other computers, then therefore there
> is no problem with the card.
>
> I'm convinced that the driver of 3c509 is the culprit of your
> computer(exotic?) hardware. It does'nt detect your hardware setup.
>
> For a more simple solu
George Bonser wrote:
> Just curious, have you tried the modprobe yet?
>
> George Bonser
> Debian/GNU Linux See http://www.debian.org
> Linux ... It isn't just for breakfast anymore!
Sure did and no luck. Same message:
init_module: Device or resource busy.
But if you look at my configs attac
Not to say that you aren't the MAN when it comes to ethernet drivers
(you are), but I think I've found a problem that might be resolved with
a few modifications to the source of the 3c509.c driver.
Attached to this email are applicable files from my Debian Linux 2.0.29
installation.
I have compile
13 matches
Mail list logo
