Nic card modules
A question about Nic cards and modules.
This is the output of "ifconfig eth0":
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:05:5D:AA:3B:E0
inet addr:192.168.0.3 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:3 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:22 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:472 (472.0 b) TX bytes:2827 (2.7 KiB)
Interrupt:11 Base address:0xb800
And this are a few lines from "dmesg":
pcnet32.c: PCI bios is present, checking for devices...
via-rhine.c:v1.08b-LK1.0.1 12/14/2000 Written by Donald Becker
http://www.scyld.com/network/via-rhine.html
eth0: VIA VT6102 Rhine-II at 0xb800, 00:05:5d:aa:3b:e0, IRQ 11.
eth0: MII PHY found at address 8, status 0x782d advertising 05e1 Link 45e1.
From all this, I entail that my Nic card, a Dlink dfe-530tx (module
Via-rhine) is working.
But the output of "lsmod" is:
Module Size Used by
slip 7252 2 (autoclean)
slhc 4336 1 (autoclean) [slip]
af_packet 6136 2 (autoclean)
nls_cp437 3896 2 (autoclean)
So, no Via-rhine module seems to be present.
The ouptut of "modprobe via-rhine" is:
Hint: insmod errors can be caused by incorrect module parameters,
including invalid IO or IRQ parameters
/lib/modules/2.2.20-idepci/net/via-rhine.o: init_module: Device or
resource busy
/lib/modules/2.2.20-idepci/net/via-rhine.o: insmod
/lib/modules/2.2.20-idepci/net/via-rhine.o failed
/lib/modules/2.2.20-idepci/net/via-rhine.o: insmod via-rhine failed
Form this, I don't know what to think: is the Via-rhine module already
working, or can it work at all?
File /etc/modules has the following (scheletric) content:
# /etc/modules: kernel modules to load at boot time.
#
# This file should contain the names of kernel modules that are
# to be loaded at boot time, one per line. Comments begin with
# a "#", and everything on the line after them are ignored.
Have nic cards modules special properties? Do they have a different name
when they are loadable and when they are loaded?
I'm a bit puzeld.
Thanks,
Piero.
Reply to: