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

Re: Modem does not work



> >Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:30:16 GMT
> >From: Pedro Quaresma de Almeida <quaresma@mat.uc.pt>
> >CC: phil.dyer@mindspring.com, debian-user@lists.debian.org
> >
> >>Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:33:23 -0800 (PST)
> >>From: ferret@phonewave.net
> >>
> >>On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, dyer wrote:
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I have bought (two day ago) a  modem, it says (in the windows software)
> >>> > >> that it is a "Motorols SM56 PCI, Speakerphone Modem" and it is on
> >>> > >> COM4.
> >>> > >
> >>> > >That says it all. Speakerphone Modem = Winmodem. Take it back and get a
> >>> > >real modem.
> >>> > >--
> >>> >
> >>> > Now I have an "Supra 2260 PCI Modem Enumerator/Supra Max 56i Voice
> >>> > PCI" (dual personality!?), but no luck ... :(
> >>> >
> >>> > It is an internal PCI modem, Windows says that it is on COM3, IRQ10,
> >>> > so it should be in /dev/ttyS3, but I only have two serial connections
> >>> > working,
> >>> >
> >>> 
> >>> I think you bought another winmodem. To expand on the last response, I would go by
> >>> the _general_ rule:
> >>> PCI Modem = Winmodem
> >>PCI modem with the string `HCF' in the description under Windows =
> >>Winmodem
> >>PCI modem listed as `comm controller' in any BIOS verbosity might be a
> >>real modem. Currently, AFAIK, PCI serial support is in the unstable 2.3.x
> >>kernels, but there is a backport for a couple devices in 2.0.38
> >>
> 
> I have compiled the 2.3.31 Kernel and now I have
> 
> $ cat /proc/pci
> 
> ...
>     Communication controller: Rockwell International HCF 56k V90 FaxModem (rev 1).
>       IRQ 10.
>       Master Capable.  Latency=64.  
>       Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0xe9000000 [0xe900ffff].
>       I/O at 0xe800 [0xe807].
> ...
> 
> This means (Rockwell International HCF) that I have bought another
> Winmodem ??? :(
> 

IIRC, HCF might be something to this effect, but I might be wrong.

You might want to consult the Modem and the Hardware HOWTOs




Reply to: