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

RE: SS4000E Kernel v3.4 Config

I had tried that before but to be sure tried again.

Setting the e1000 driver to built-in instead of module and rebuild. 1.5M

N/w card is detected this time but DHCP ip acquisition fails, so that's a
step forward I guess. I know DHCP is available from the n/w because 2.6.32
worked OK and other machines get it.

Continued to configure n/w manually with an IP, GW, DNS etc. This fails to
retrieve files from the Deb archive mirror, so the n/w is apparently not
functioning really.


-----Original Message-----
From: Arnaud Patard (Rtp) [mailto:arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:12 PM
To: Chris Wilkinson
Cc: debian-arm@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: SS4000E Kernel v3.4 Config

"Chris Wilkinson" <kinsham@verizon.net> writes:

> Continuing this quest to move my kernel to 3.4 so I can use Arnaud's LED
> patches. This problem with v3.4 kernel failing to detect the network card
> seems to be inherent in 3.4.
> Latest attempt was to install using the daily-images
> http://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/armel/daily/iop32x/netboot/ss4000e/.
> results in kernel v2.6.32.5 which detects the n/w card fine, d-i completes
> and it boots no problem. From the boot trace, the n/w driver used is
> [   13.750000] e1000: eth0: e1000_probe: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network
> Connection
> CONFIG_E1000 is the flag in kernel .config.
> I then copied config-2.6.32-5-iop32x that was put in /boot to configure
> 3.4 kernel without any of Arnaud's patches. This builds fine and yields a
> zImage of 1.5MB but also fails to detect the n/w card. It's also the same
> using the _defconfig extracted from the deb at
> _3.2.23-1_armel.deb
> I used the initrd.gz from the daily-images. I wonder if this is the

the network driver is in module so you need to find a way to load it
while installing with d-i. Given that the zImage size is 1.5MB, maybe
you can try putting the ethernet driver built-in instead of module to
workaround that ?


Reply to: