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

3c905-tx installs with IRQ = 0



I am a wannabe new Debian user. I did a successful net install of Potato some time ago on an old 486, but it was too slow to support a GUI.

Now I am attempting to do a net install of the current distribution of Woody on a recent vintage 1.8 GHz Pentium 4 (ASUS P4B533 motherboard) with a 3c905-tx NIC.

I cannot get the 3c905-tx to work at all. This is probably because it is being configured to use IRQ 0. During boot from CD, or after installling a minimal system, I get the message (approximately)

eth0: 3com 3c905c Toronado at 0xb400 IRQ 0
Warning: IRQ 0 is not likely to work

The warning is absolutely correct, of course.

The same computer/NIC/router works fine under Win98SE, either with DHCP or manually configured.

The BIOS identifies as an Award Medallion BIOS v. 6.0.
It also outputs the identification Award P&P BIOS V1.0A.

The driver which supports the 3c905-tx apparently does not accept parameters to specify IO address or IRQ.

I downloaded and burned the latest version of the BIOS (1014) from the ASUS website. No change.

I tried disabling the on-board sound chip on the motherboard (I saw some newsgroup items re interrupt conflicts between the 3c905-tx and sound cards). No change.

I found an article on the 3com website describing a similar problem, "Award BIOS 4.50g sets IRQ to 0". The solution described is to use the BIOS setup screen to force the PCI slot with the 3c905-tx in it to IRQ 10. I have tried this and it makes no difference.

I have also tried moving the 3c905-tx to another slot.

Finally, I bought a Realtek RTL8139 NIC and tried installing it instead of the 3c905-tx. I had similar problems, though I have not documented my efforts as carefully as with the 3c905-tx card.

It looks to me like the Award P & P BIOS on the ASUS motherboard has some major problem. Perhaps Windows does its own P & P allocation of IRQs and thereby overcomes the problem.

Any suggestions would be gratefully received.



Reply to: