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

Re: 8139cp 0000:03:08.0: This (id 10ec:8139 rev 10) is not an 8139C+ compatible chip



On Monday 21 July 2008 17:42, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 02:24:46PM +0200, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > On Monday 21 July 2008 13:27, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > On Mon,21.Jul.08, 03:55:20, Dominik Dera wrote:
> > > > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > > > and the blacklisting won't work if the module is in your initrd!
> > > > > You at least need to run update-initramfs and you would probably be
> > > > > advised to unpack one to make *sure* it's not in there...
> > > >
> > > > This problem can be solved by removing 8139cp module, and afterwards
> > > > updating initramfs. So it goes like this:
> > > >
> > > > rmmod -v 8139cp
> > > > update-initramfs -uv
> > >
> > > This will not survive a linux-image update.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Andrei
> >
> > Personally, I've never found any problems with both modules being loaded.
> > I've had to add 8139too to /etc/modules, and both are loaded, and I think
> > the bootup messages complain about 8139cp, and then goes on to say "using
> > 8139too".
> >
> > If the blacklisting won't work, I've had success with loading the
> > unwanted module to /bin/true, where it's loaded into nowhere land. Add a
> > line to a file in /etc/modprobe.d. I don't know if it matters which file
> > you add it to, and I put it, in the case of "pcspkr" in the alsa-base
> > file. See below.
> >
> > install 8139cp /bin/true
>
> make a "local" file in modprobe.d so that updates to those files won't
> bork your custom stuff.
>
> A

Thanks for that suggestion Andrew. With Fedora it's easy, as it's all added 
to /etc/modprobe.conf. I've always been a bit confused as to where to add 
options lines, etc, in my Debian installs /etc/modprobe.d, as there are so 
many files in this directory. Obviously some are a no-go, but it becomes a 
bit hit and miss, like close your eyes, and stick a pin in. Ok I'll put the 
option in this one.

I'll definately create a "local" file, and use this in the future.

Thanks again.

Nigel.





Reply to: