DEC 21143 & tulip?

[Nicholas Edwards]

Silly question, but why don't you remove the complexity of rebooting to
use different drivers by building them as modules?

On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Theo Van Dinter wrote:

> I know this was discussed a little recently on the list, but I thought I'd 
> send a question/statement about my experiences with the 21143 chipset:
> 
> I have a bunch of systems using an UmaxLink-100TX PCI network card (using the 
> DEC 21143-PC chipset).  The de4x5 driver seems to work very well, there are no 
> known problems yet.
> 
> I replaced the card (for debugging purposes) with a Kingston KNE-100TX card 
> (DEC 21140 chipset), and switched to the 0.90 version of the tulip driver. 
> Things seem to come up fine, no problems noticed yet.
> 
> 
> Thinking that the 21143 was a tulip chip, I tried booting another machine with 
> the 21143 card using the tulip driver.  It semi-worked, but a number of 
> net-based daemons didn't come up at bootup (automounter, ypbind, etc.)
> 
> Is the 21143 chipset only useful with the de4x5 driver, or is it really a 
> tulip chipset?  Right now, I'm content to have different kernels that I choose 
> when I boot with a certain card, but if I compile both the de4x5 and tulip 
> drivers into the kernel, the tulip driver kicks in first (with either network 
> card), and then causes problems with the 21143 card.
> 
> -- 
> Randomly Generated Tagline:
> Careful. I know karate and a few other foreign words.
> 
> 
>