>> The other system has an ISA-bus NE2k clone card, and that isn't
>> even detected with 2.2.10 - it just doesn't want to know.
> Chuck some printk calls in the driver and see why. I cannot see
> any obvious reason for the problem.
Here's the lines I added for debugging purposes...
===8<=== CUT ===>8===
--- linux-2.2.10/drivers/net/ne.c~ Sun Mar 7 23:47:46 1999
+++ linux-2.2.10/drivers/net/ne.c Mon Jul 19 20:07:50 1999
@@ -194,16 +194,19 @@
#endif
#ifndef MODULE
/* Last resort. The semi-risky ISA auto-probe. */
for (base_addr = 0; netcard_portlist[base_addr] != 0; base_addr++) {
int ioaddr = netcard_portlist[base_addr];
+ printk("ne.c: Probing 0x%X\n",ioaddr);
if (check_region(ioaddr, NE_IO_EXTENT))
continue;
+ printk("ne.c: check_region returned zero.\n");
if (ne_probe1(dev, ioaddr) == 0)
return 0;
+ printk("ne.c: ne_probe1 returned non-zero.\n");
}
#endif
return ENODEV;
}
#endif
===8<=== CUT ===>8===
...and here's the resulting dmesg lines.
Q> ne.c: Probing 0x300
Q> ne.c: check_region returned zero.
Q> ne.c: ne_probe1 returned non-zero.
Q> ne.c: Probing 0x280
Q> ne.c: check_region returned zero.
Q> ne.c: ne_probe1 returned non-zero.
Q> ne.c: Probing 0x320
Q> ne.c: check_region returned zero.
Q> ne.c: ne_probe1 returned non-zero.
Q> ne.c: Probing 0x340
Q> ne.c: check_region returned zero.
Q> ne.c: ne_probe1 returned non-zero.
Q> ne.c: Probing 0x360
Q> ne.c: Probing 0x380
The actual detail for the card in question is io=0x360 which is the
point at which check_region first returns non-zero, and this is
therefore the reason why the ne2000 driver no longer auto-probes ISA
cards successfully.
It therefore looks like check_region has changed its behaviour
somewhere in between.
Suggestions?
Oh, one thing - I grep'd all the patches from 2.2.5 through 2.2.10 and
none of them patch ne.c so I have to conclude that whatever changed
isn't in ne.c but is somewhere else...
Whilst I'm thinking...
1. I just noticed that my kernel-parameters.txt file has been
included with the 2.2.10 kernels. Thanks for doing that.
2. Did you get either of the two patches I sent out recently?
One fixed a bug in the top level Makefile and the other
corrected the fact that BogoMIPS are usually underestimated
somewhat.
Best wishes from Riley.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
| development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
| in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
| else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
* ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux
* http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/