Re: 2.0.32 kernel: strange error
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Philippe Troin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 07:07:05 +0100 Remco Blaakmeer
> (remco@blaakmeer.student.utwente.nl) wrote:
>
> > I posted the message below to comp.os.linux.misc but I didn't get any
> > answer. Does anybody know more about the problem I describe below? Or can
> > anyone point me at the right newsgroup for this question?
>
> Your friendly debian-user mailing list is always here to help you...
:-)
> [snip]
> > The problem is with the 3c509 driver. I have a 3COM 3c509 card and an El
> > Cheapo NE2000 clone, which have always worked flawlessly. The relevant
> > lines in /etc/conf.modules are:
> >
> > alias eth0 3c509
> > alias eth1 ne
> > options 3c509 io=0x300
> > options ne io=0x280
> >
> > I supplied the 'io' parameters because
> > /usr/src/linux/Documentation/networking/net-modules.txt says that probing
> > for these cards is unreliable.
> >
> > Now, when I boot a 2.0.31 or 2.0.32 kernel, I get this error message when
> > kerneld tries to load the 3c509 driver:
> >
> > symbol for parameter io not found
>
> io was removed some time ago from the driver. The irq should be enough
> to detect the card and will allow to find the ioport magically I think.
> Actually, unless your setup is really special, it should autodetect the
> card automagically. The auto-detection routine has been improved lately.
Don't you think the file net-modules.txt should be updated to reflect
this? Who should I contact about this?
BTW, it seems to me that the Windows driver for this card only uses the
i/o address and probes for the irq every time. Why is this difference (not
that it is really important :) )? Also, I thought that some (most? all?)
PCI cards can't set their own irq because of the PCI specifications. It
would be more consistent for all drivers to include the 'io' parameter by
default and then probe for the irq, IMHO.
Remco
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: