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

Re: ARRGH!!! Tulip card again



On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 02:01:41PM -0800, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> On Wed, 2001-11-14 at 13:39, flonesaw@longship.net wrote:
> > HELP!
> > 
> > This is driving me absolutely positively mad.
> > 
> > I have a Netgear F? 310TX network card, which is a PNIC 82c168 (tulip clone).
> > 
> > I *cannot* get this card to run reliably on the latest Debian stable (2.2.Rev4).
> 
> As you note, these are common cards, and the tulip is by far the best
> widespread ethernet controller.  So, why are you having problems with
> yours? :)
> 
> I'm using these cards in machines running 2.4 without problems.  The
> only thing that strikes me about your problem is that it seems related
> to autonegotiation of speed and duplex settings.  I presume that your
> card is attached to an autonegotiating switch.  If so, try disabling the
> autonegotiation and lock the port at 100, full duplex.  If the switch
> cannot do that, lock your NIC to 100, full duplex.  I think you can use
> module parameters for this.
> 
> I don't think there is any reason to go with old_tulip; the new driver
> is fine.  If it is possible, go with the latest kernel revision
> (2.4.14).
> 
> There is a linux-tulip mailing list if you get really frustrated.

Kinda related...
I had big problems with the natsemi driver until I compiled it as a
module - it seems it's a lot more stable as a module rather than
compiled into the kernel. I would also very much suggest using a new
kernel.

HTH,

Matthew

-- 

Matthew Sackman
Nottingham,
ENGLAND

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this email are intended for the indicated recipient(s)
only. This may or may not be indicated in the above email as it is
enormously easy to fake email addresses (see the relevant RFCs).

For security reasons this email is likely to be gnupg signed. On the
other hand it may not be if I forgot to do so. In any case, if you
are reading this on a Windows based computer then there was no point
in me doing so (provided that I remembered) as your computer is most
likely being used by yourself and 2.8 other people at the same time
(normally without your consent).

No responsibility will be accepted by anyone for any of the contents
of this email. So tough. If in doubt, go compile Mozilla.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpbiH99j1aZU.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: