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

Re: 5.0 and 5.0.1: wrong base address used for 3com NIC



On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:11:07PM +0100, Danny Hartley wrote:
> Booting Knoppix 5.0 DVD and 5.0.1 CD on any of my machines here results in
> wrong base address shown for eth0 from ifconfig command. Machines tested are
> PII & PIII+BX motherboard with 3Com 3c900B NIC. Base address of eth0 should
> be 0x6800 but values have been 0, 0x2000, 0xa000, 0xc000, 0xe000. On a third
> machine (K6-2+VIA) with two NICs (3c900 and 3c905B) eth0 has correct address
> but eth1 varies like above. NICs function on all machines except one.
> Previous versions of Knoppix are ok.
> 
> I tracked down these lines in dmesg:
>   PCI: Found IRQ 11 for device 0000:00:0b.0
>   3c59x: Donald Becker and others. www .scyld.com/network/vortex.html
>   0000:00:0b.0: 3Com PCI 3c900 Cyclone 10Mbps TPC at d085a000. Vers
> LK1.1.19
> 
> The "at d085a000" would be "at 0x6800" on previous versions of Knoppix. In
> this example ifconfig shows eth0 base address as 0xa000. Unfortunately, I
> only have 3com cards for testing. lspci show correct values. The command
> hwsetup also shows the correct base address. /proc/ioports has correct
> address but looks malformed?
> 
> Futher details at: http://www.knoppix.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24746
> 
> Is this a driver and/or kernel bug? And any way of getting around it?

I'm unsure by what this could be caused, since nothing has (IMHO)
changed in Knoppix concerning loading network drivers by hwsetup.

Thinking more about it, it COULD be a problem with udev, which is new in
5.x. I don't know how udev specifically handles network drivers. hwsetup
just loads the module without parameters.

You could try booting with "knoppix noudev" to see if hwsetup handles
the driver in a better way.

If this doesn't help, try any of the "no"-options: noapic acpi=off
pci=bios would be good candidates that maybe have some influence on the
PCI configuration of network cards.

Regards
-Klaus Knopper



Reply to: