Re: Update - Re: Weird Network Card problems - 2

[Ajit Warrier <unixajit yahoo com>]

Thanks Tony for pointing me in a direction I can
explore more now. Unfortunately these cards are too
expensive for me to get a replacement. I guess I will
have to make do without a network connection for now,
which would severly limit the usefulness of this
system which I am building so I can learn Linux.
Anyway, that's life.

It would be great if I can install some other driver
or something. Any suggestions for a Xircom CBE 10/100
card? Does anyone have this card working under linux?

Ajit

--- Tony Dietrich <td transoft demon co uk> wrote:
> You may be right, I'm not a hardware person <g>
> 
> But even so, if the drivers are attempting to scan
> for the EEPROM (if it
> exists!) before the correct IRQ's etc are
> initialised, it may well be
> the root cause of the problem....
> 
> And all I'm doing is reporting what I read after
> doing a search on
> google for 'EEPROM not found" combined with 'tulip'
> 
> TD
> 
> On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 21:11, Dan Walker wrote:
> > I always thought that an eeprom was only there if
> you put one in there.
> > i mean call me stupid but every network card that
> i have seen has the
> > space for an extra chip. this is so it can boot
> from it - the boot rom!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 	From: 	Tony Dietrich <td transoft demon co uk>
> > Reply-To: 	redhat-install-list redhat com
> > To: 	RedHat Install
> <redhat-install-list redhat com>
> > Subject: 	Re: Update - Re: Weird Network Card
> problems - 2
> > Date: 	04 Jan 2003 19:55:58 +0000	
> > Ajit
> > 
> > Doing some quick research on the net for you, it
> seems that the error
> > message you are getting about EEPROM not present,
> and the subsequent
> > failure of the card to connect, are a know bug in
> the tulip.c drivers
> > for that card.
> > 
> > Although the technical language went over my head,
> it seems that the
> > current versions of the driver are built with the
> scan detection order
> > the wrong way round ... in other word, it tries to
> scan for the EEPROM
> > first, before finalising the IRQ etc.  This can
> result in unpredictable
> > values being used when the driver is initialised.
> (including the
> > reported MAC address)
> > 
> > This all boils down to the simple fact that you
> have a bit of hardware
> > that isn't fully supported by Linux yet.  The
> articles I read suggested
> > that no solution is yet available.
> > 
> > Sorry to be the bearer of bad new.
> > 
> > TD
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 18:28, Ajit Warrier wrote:
> > > I did one better. I removed the eth0 card from
> the
> > > machine and removed the card from the network
> > > configuration tool. This is only card in the
> laptop.
> > > Then rebooted.
> > > 
> > > This removed all entries from the routing table
> except
> > > for the entry for lo.
> > > 
> > > Then shutdown and re-inserted the card. During
> > > startup, it once again did *not* detect the
> card. I
> > > added eth0 as a DC clone from the network
> > > configuration tool. I checked that the card came
> up
> > > and that the module for tulip was loaded.
> > > 
> > > The routing table generated was exactly the same
> - one
> > > entry for the default gateway set correctly, one
> for
> > > lo and one for the network. Now, as far as I
> know, the
> > > entry for the local network should have the eth0
> IP
> > > address as the gateway. Am I correct here? This
> is how
> > > I see the routing table in other machines.
> > > 
> > > At any rate, I can ping the IP of eth0. Cannot
> ping
> > > any other IPs in the internal network. And I
> still do
> > > get a different MAC address than when I am in
> Win98 on
> > > the same machine. I know that each card in the
> world
> > > has a unique MAC address and that it is not
> possible
> > > for a card to have different MAC's in different
> OS's,
> > > but it *is* nevertheless happening. 
> > > 
> > > Could it be that eth0 is only a virtual adapter
> (the
> > > physical adapter not getting detected at all)
> and so
> > > it can ping itself and nothing else? Because in
> dmesg
> > > I get the message -
> > > 
> > > eth0: Digital DS21143 Tulip rev 48 at
> 0xc48e0000,
> > > EEPROM not present, 00:4c:69:6e:75:79, IRQ 11
> > > 
> > > Any ideas? In case it helps, I can send a
> detailed
> > > document showing my network, IPs etc and any
> other
> > > file that may help, as attachement. Just say the
> word
> > > - I am desperate here!
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your time guys.
> > > 
> > > Ajit
> > > 
> > > --- Rick Stevens <rstevens vitalstream com>
> wrote:
> > > > Ajit Warrier wrote:
> > > > > Hi list,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I used 
> > > > > 
> > > > > route add -net 10.3.1.0 netmask
> 255.255.255.0 eth0
> > > > > 
> > > > > however this makes the following entry in
> the
> > > > table -
> > > > > 
> > > > > 10.3.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U...
> > > > > 
> > > > > I thought that the gateway for this should
> be the
> > > > IP
> > > > > of the adapter of the machine itself since
> this
> > > > > machine is part of the 10.3.1.0 network. So
> I
> > > > tried to
> > > > > add it as below - 
> > > > > 
> > > > > route add -net 10.3.1.0 netmask
> 255.255.255.0 gw
> > > > > 10.3.1.23.
> > > > > 
> > > > > However this added the entry with a UG in
> teh Flag
> > > > > portion (as expected).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I still cannot access the network.
> > > > 
> > > > Oh, gawd.  Look, do "/etc/rc.d/init.d/network
> > > > restart" to start off
> > > > with a clean slate.  Find out what the IP
> address of
> > > > your Linux box
> > > > is SUPPOSED to be and what it ACTUALLY is.  To
> find
> > > > out what it
> > > > ACTUALLY is:
> > > > 
> > > >     ifconfig eth0
> > > > 
> > > > If the address is wrong, then use this command
> to
> > > > change it, replacing
> > > > "correct.ip.address" with the right one:
> > > > 
> > > >     ifconfig eth0 correct.ip.address netmask
> > > > 255.255.255.0
> > > > 
> > > > Next, find out what the IP address is OF THE
> ROUTER
> > > > and use THAT as
> > > > the default gateway:
> > > > 
> > > >     route add default gw ip-addr-of-router
> > > > 
> > > > Then test.
> > > > 
> > > > > Also the MAC address is showing up as
> different
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com