[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PCMCIA nightmare - help!



Thanks.

Guess I ought to have printed off the laptop howto before starting :-()

Patrick
----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Shand <larry@alaska.net>
To: Patrick Kirk <patrick@kirks.net>
Cc: Debian User List <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: PCMCIA nightmare - help!


>
> > In a wild fit of Debian advocacy, I persuaded a colleague at work to
> > partition the hard disk on his portable and install Debian.
>
> good for both of you :-)
>
> > Installation was a breeze...it put the PCMCIA stuff in and booted nicely
> > with beeps and so on.  But it had lost all the IP info and ifconfig eth0
> > got no such device errors.
> >
> > This is a real embarrassment.  I have modprobed made sure the xirc2ps_cs
> > module is loaded but no joy...I cannot configure a network.  No such
> > device type messages.  Interface not recognised.
>
> most likely one of three things is happening.
>
> * you're pcmcia card isn't supported under linux (or isn't supported in
the
>   main release).
>
> * you have a hardware conflict.  check your messages log file and if so
>   there should be some hints.  you can also check /proc/interrupts and
>   /proc/ioports to see if everything looks in order.
>
> * you have a your pcmcia slots on the laptop are cardbus.  even if the
card
>   itself isn't cardbus you will need to make sure that you are running a
>   fairly recent pcmcia package (i believe the ones with slink are too
old).
>
>   download the latest ones for your kernel and it should all spring to
life.
>
> > Is there some obvious mistake I've made?  For example, is the PCMCIA
> > card called eth0?  Or is there somewhere to find error messages?
>
> it's still called eth0 as pcmica device.  the only thing that's differnt
is
> the modules that will be loaded.
>
> also check the linux laptop page for a laptop similar to the one your
> installing on.  it's possible there are tricks to it.
>
> adam.
>
>


Reply to: