Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:17:49 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White <dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu> To: "Gregory A. Gilliss" <ggilliss@localhost.netpublishing.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 3C589 'C' and 3C589 'D' Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.94.970122121551.3684F-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <199701212246.OAA04466@localhost.netpublishing.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Gregory A. Gilliss wrote: > I hacked the if_zp.c code a little and it appears that the get_eeprom_base > function is returning a bad value from the card (0xffff) both times through, > which in turn is causing the comparison between the stated based address > (0x300) in the kernel config and the card's address to fail. > > Yes, it looks/works fine using the DOS/Windoze 3com diskette. > > Would they *really* change the layout of the EEPROM, or does the zp driver > just get lucky when it goes looking for the base address? Perhaps. This is the fourth revision of this card, they are no doubt going to make changes. > Both possibilities are kinda hard to swallow. But if they did change the > PROM and someone can get the new port numbers, I'll gladly patch the driver > rather than send back the card (Mfr. date is 12/24/96). Ask 3com, and you will probably receive. :) Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.94.970122121551.3684F-100000>