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

Bug#515533: linux-2.6.26: tulip module handles dmfe cards (again)



Package: linux-image-2.6-486
Version: 2.6.26+17
Severity: important


After upgrading to linux-2.6.26 from 2.6.18, one of my two network cards stopped working.  Closer examination showed lots of 
"tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc740000 CSR6 0x2042202)"
messages.  It seems that bug #405203 resurfaced again, but I was unable to add a reply there since it's archived already.  The workaround described there (rmmod tulip; rmmod dmfe; modprobe dmfe) works for me.  A quick diff of the two kernel versions' modules.pcimap files shows that both dmfe and tulip claim responsibility for the same devices (again):

$ diff -y 2.6.18-6-486/modules.pcimap 2.6.26-1-486/modules.pcimap | grep 00001282
dmfe                 0x00001282 0x00009132 0xffffffff 0xfffff   dmfe                 0x00001282 0x00009132 0xffffffff 0xfffff
dmfe                 0x00001282 0x00009102 0xffffffff 0xfffff   dmfe                 0x00001282 0x00009102 0xffffffff 0xfffff
dmfe                 0x00001282 0x00009100 0xffffffff 0xfffff   dmfe                 0x00001282 0x00009100 0xffffffff 0xfffff
dmfe                 0x00001282 0x00009009 0xffffffff 0xfffff   dmfe                 0x00001282 0x00009009 0xffffffff 0xfffff
                                                              > tulip                0x00001282 0x00009100 0xffffffff 0xfffff
                                                              > tulip                0x00001282 0x00009102 0xffffffff 0xfffff



-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-1-486
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages linux-image-2.6-486 depends on:
ii  linux-image-2.6.26-1-486      2.6.26-13  Linux 2.6.26 image on x86

linux-image-2.6-486 recommends no packages.

linux-image-2.6-486 suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information



Reply to: