Re: Kernel 2.2 and 2.4: boot differences?
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:12, Adrian Zimmer wrote:
> As to lspci, I did take your advice but the results seemed to tell
> me nothing useful. Here they are is. Maybe, you will see something
> interesting:
>
> >From 2.2.20-idepci
>
> 00:10.0 Ethernet controller: Accton Technology Corporation EN-1216 Ethernet Adapter (rev 11)
> Subsystem: Accton Technology Corporation: Unknown device 2242
> Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 64, IRQ 11
> I/O ports at 1c00
> Memory at e8000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable)
> Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2
>
> >From 2.4.18 (compiled by me)
>
> 00:10.0 Ethernet controller: Accton Technology Corporation EN-1216 Ethernet Adapter (rev 11)
> Subsystem: Accton Technology Corporation: Unknown device 2242
> Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 64, IRQ 11
> I/O ports at 1c00 [size=256]
> Memory at e8000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=1K]
> Expansion ROM at <unassigned> [disabled] [size=128K]
> Capabilities: [c0] Power Management version 2
>
> I still tend to think the problem is with what the configuration is doing
> *after* tulip gets set up --- right where I would have thought things would
> be running the same for both kernel images. Can't claim I have much
> relevant experience to support that intuition though.
>From your email this morning:
"the base addresses used by the two tulip modules are different"
>From what I see, the base address is the same under both kernels:
IRQ = 11
Base address = 1c00
Where do you get the info saying there are different base addresses?
What's the output of "netstat -a"? (Since for me it's 186 lines,
why not send it to me directly as an attachment?)
The output from ifconfig might help also.
[big snippage]
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr. Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net |
| Jefferson, LA USA |
| |
| "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian |
| because I hate vegetables!" |
| unknown |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: