From: Wolfgang Wegner <ww@kt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PCI IRQ (routing) problem with mediaGX
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 14:33:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011102143354.E30033@bigmac.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011026170143.B15834@bigmac.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de> <E15x9T9-0000VU-00@the-village.bc.nu>
In-Reply-To: <E15x9T9-0000VU-00@the-village.bc.nu>; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 05:04:27PM +0100
Hi again,
sorry for making such a fuzz about such a simple problem... :)
I dropped natsemi.c from 2.4.4 in 2.4.13-ac5, and now network
works flawlessly, although the strange error message still remains:
(dmesg output):
natsemi.c:v1.07 1/9/2001 Written by Donald Becker <becker@scyld.com>
http://www.scyld.com/network/natsemi.html
(unofficial 2.4.x kernel port, version 1.0.5, April 17, 2001 Jeff Garzik, Tjeerd Mulder)
PCI: Found IRQ 10 for device 00:0e.0
IRQ routing conflict for 00:0e.0, have irq 11, want irq 10
eth0: NatSemi DP83815 at 0xc281f000, fb:ff:fb:ff:fb:ff, IRQ 11.
eth0: Transceiver status 0x7869 advertising 05e1.
The non-working natsemi.c dmesg output looks like this:
natsemi.c:v1.07 1/9/2001 Written by Donald Becker <becker@scyld.com>
http://www.scyld.com/network/natsemi.html
(unofficial 2.4.x kernel port, version 1.07+LK1.0.11, Oct 19, 2001 Jeff Garzi
k, Tjeerd Mulder)
PCI: Found IRQ 10 for device 00:0e.0
IRQ routing conflict for 00:0e.0, have irq 11, want irq 10
eth%d: EEPROM did not reload in 2000 usec.
eth0: NatSemi DP8381[56] at 0xc2820000, fb:ff:fb:ff:fb:ff, IRQ 11.
eth0: Transceiver status 0x7869 advertising 05e1.
eth0: link is back. Enabling watchdog.
eth0: Link changed: Autonegotiation advertising 05e1 partner 0000.
eth0: no link. Disabling watchdog.
eth0: Link wake-up event 00400617
eth0: Link changed: Autonegotiation advertising 05e1 partner 0000.
Note the additional transceiver messages!
The only difference of the first one to original 2.4.4 is the strange
occurence of IRQ10, but at least it works now... :)
(2.4.9 and 2.4.13 without any patches contain the same natsemi.c and
thus do _not_ work either) In case there is anything I can do to
help solve this strange IRQ mapping inconsistency, let me know!
Thanks to everybody!
Wolfgang
prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-02 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-26 15:01 Wolfgang Wegner
2001-10-26 16:04 ` Alan Cox
2001-11-02 13:33 ` Wolfgang Wegner [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20011102143354.E30033@bigmac.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de \
--to=ww@kt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®