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

Re: Module 3c575_cb dropped from kernel-pcmcia-modules?



That's strange, 3c575_cb.c is contained in the pcmcia-source package. 
Do you have the appropriate kernel-pcmcia-modules package installed? 
You can install pcmcia-source and kernel source and create your own
modules package, if necessary.

Bob

On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 11:39:12PM +0200, Jan T. Kim wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I installed Debian r3.0 from the official CD set on a Sony notebook
> computer, equipped with a 3com PCMCIA ethernet card:
> 
>     % cardctl ident
>     Socket 0:
>       product info: "3Com Corporation", "3CCFE575BT", "LAN Cardbus Card", "001"
>       manfid: 0x0101, 0x5157
>       function: 6 (network)
>       PCI id: 0x10b7, 0x5157
> 
> After the initial installation, the network card worked fine, but then,
> after switching the kernel to kernel-image-2.4.18-686, I could not get it
> to work.
> 
> After some web browsing and messing around, I figured out that the
> card appears to have the 3Com 575 chipset and to require the 3c575_cb
> kernel module. Upon browsing package contents, I found out that this
> module (along with the cb_enabler module upon which it depends) is
> only included in the kernel-image-2.4.18-bf2.4 package. So I installed
> that in place of the 686 package. Now, the card works again, and the
> output of lsmod confirms that the modules mentioned above are indeed
> used. However, I'd prefer to be able to use the 686 kernel...
> 
> I now have the following questions:
> 
>     * Have I overlooked something obvious?
> 
>     * Why are the modules not in the pcmcia-modules package?
> 
>     * If there is a reason for that (e.g. my card is considered outdated,
>       crummy, exotic or somesuch), would it be reasonable to set up an
>       additional package with "outdated" (or whatever) modules?
> 
>     * Is there a simple instruction sheet for building a kernel with
>       the modules I need and otherwise identical to the 686 kernel?
> 
>     * Finally, what is the idea behind this "bf variant"? All I've found
>       is the package is "primarily intended to be used as the initial
>       installation kernel". Any acronym expansion on "bf"?
> 
> Greetinx & thanx in advance, Jan



Reply to: