On Friday 26 March 2004 22:27, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > This is the most talkative NIC driver in my .config:
> >
> > cs89x0:cs89x0_probe(0x0)
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > PP_addr=0xffff
> > eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff
> > cs89x0: no cs8900 or cs8920 detected. Be sure to disable PnP with SETUP
>
> Not bad, but what about a patch that notices the 0xffff address, and
> assumes it won't find anything?
It does not access port 0xffff. It tries to say that it probed for hardware
and:
PP_addr=0xffff - inw(ioaddr + ADD_PORT) returned all foxes
eth0: incorrect signature 0xffff - inw(ioaddr + DATA_PORT) returned all foxes,
which is not known EISA id. Pretty cryptic :)
Maybe this patch?
--
vda
cs89x0.diff
Description: Text Data
|