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

Bug#381886: marked as done (linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp: e1000 EEPROM Checksum failed on T60p)

Your message dated Wed, 21 May 2008 17:53:03 +0200
with message-id <20080521155303.GH29953@stro.at>
and subject line Re: linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp: e1000 EEPROM Checksum failed on T60p
has caused the Debian Bug report #381886,
regarding linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp: e1000 EEPROM Checksum failed on T60p
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
381886: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=381886
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp
Version: 2.6.16-17
Severity: normal

On a T60p with the latest BIOS (1.09), e1000 fails to find the ethernet device
when loaded.  It generates the following error in the kernel log:

Aug  7 06:39:18 localhost kernel: e1000: 0000:02:00.0: e1000_probe: The EEPROM Checksum Is Not Valid
Aug  7 06:39:18 localhost kernel: e1000: probe of 0000:02:00.0 failed with error -5

Plugging in the cable and then loading the module works around the problem.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-2-686-smp
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

Versions of packages linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp depends on:
ii  initramfs-tools [linux-initra 0.69b      tools for generating an initramfs
ii  module-init-tools             3.2.2-3    tools for managing Linux kernel mo

Versions of packages linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp recommends:
ii  libc6-i686                    2.3.6-15   GNU C Library: Shared libraries [i

-- debconf information:
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/lilo-initrd-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/elilo-initrd-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/postinst/bootloader-error-2.6.16-2-686-smp:
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/postinst/old-initrd-link-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/initrd-2.6.16-2-686-smp:
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/postinst/kimage-is-a-directory:
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/failed-to-move-modules-2.6.16-2-686-smp:
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/abort-overwrite-2.6.16-2-686-smp:
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/postinst/depmod-error-2.6.16-2-686-smp: false
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/overwriting-modules-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/prerm/would-invalidate-boot-loader-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/postinst/old-dir-initrd-link-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/already-running-this-2.6.16-2-686-smp:
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/prerm/removing-running-kernel-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/postinst/depmod-error-initrd-2.6.16-2-686-smp: false
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/postinst/bootloader-test-error-2.6.16-2-686-smp:
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/bootloader-initrd-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/postinst/old-system-map-link-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/lilo-has-ramdisk:
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/postinst/create-kimage-link-2.6.16-2-686-smp: true
  linux-image-2.6.16-2-686-smp/preinst/abort-install-2.6.16-2-686-smp:

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 2.6.23-1

fixed with newer e1000 driver.

landed in Etch thanks to etch+half kernel
see http://wiki.debian.org/EtchAndAHalf
and in unstable long ago.

thanks for your report.

-- 
maks

--- End Message ---
Reply to: