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

Re: Can't boot a kernel under SRM



On Wed, 2004-01-14 11:06:01 -0600, Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>
wrote in message <20040114170601.GB14903@tennyson.netexpress.net>:
> > Keep in mind that there are two drivers for "tulip" style network chips.
> > "tulip" is for the newer cards, "de4x5" is for older cards.
> > Unfortunately, there are some PCI IDs which are accepted by both
> > drivers, but only one of them will properly drive the hardware.
> 
> Well, unless the coverage of the tulip driver has *changed* since
> 2.4.19, mine definitely uses the tulip module.

But to be save, please try the other driver once.

> > >From my Miata (PWS 500) I also remember having had some trouble with
> > the qlogic driver, but those vanished at some time. However, I don't
> > remember *what* actually solved that...
> 
> I'm pretty sure, based on what I've heard from others working with
> 2.4.2x, that there are still outstanding problems with PCI bridges on
> alphas as of 2.4.23.

There have been patches around for 2.6.x IIRC. I don't know for sure if
they've been integrated to now...

> Output of lspci:
[Bus 0]
> 01:00.0 Ethernet controller: Digital Equipment Corporation DECchip 21040 [Tulip] (rev 23)
> 01:01.0 SCSI storage controller: QLogic Corp. ISP1020 Fast-wide SCSI (rev 01)
> 01:02.0 SCSI storage controller: QLogic Corp. ISP1020 Fast-wide SCSI (rev 01)
> 
> The devices I have trouble with on this machine are those on the second
> PCI bus (the one on the combo card).

Then, it's most probably a broken PCI bridge (or it's software support,
to be exact)... But of course, I can't find the patches now:)

MfG, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
   ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: