[tulip] What has happened to the tulip driver ? (inconnection with multiport cards)

[David Flynn]

Hi guys,

I have a Conexant 4port 10mbps NIC, and unfortunatly a machine with a

On Donald Becker's site, http://www.scyld.com/network/tulip.html, there is a
brief discussion about retaded BIOSes such as AMI BIOS that scansthe other
side of the PCI bridge in the wrong order.  The aforementioned site says to
resolve this, one should use the module option reverse_probe=1, however, it
apears that such an option is non existant in the 2.4.3 kernel!!! and the
driver in the 2.4.3 kernel doesnt solve the problem at all.

this is the log from the kernel.log:

Apr 19 16:51:57 toweringmeep kernel: eth1: Digital DC21040 Tulip rev 36 at
0xfc80, EEPROM not present, 00:00:92:96:06:FC, IRQ 11.
Apr 19 16:51:57 toweringmeep kernel: eth2: Digital DC21040 Tulip rev 36 at
0xfc00, EEPROM not present, 00:00:92:96:06:FD, IRQ 11.
Apr 19 16:51:57 toweringmeep kernel: eth3: Digital DC21040 Tulip rev 36 at
0xf880, EEPROM not present, 00:00:92:96:06:FE, IRQ 11.
Apr 19 16:51:57 toweringmeep kernel: eth4: Digital DC21040 Tulip rev 36 at
0xf800, 00:00:92:92:39:58, IRQ 3.

now it is my belief that the HW addresses are wrong (apart from the last
one)

when you compare that log with one from a PC running an award BIOS, one
finds the following :

Apr 19 16:31:47 cardboardcutoutmeep kernel: Linux Tulip driver version
0.9.14 (February 20, 2001)
Apr 19 16:31:47 cardboardcutoutmeep kernel: eth1: Digital DC21040 Tulip rev
36 at 0xd000, 00:00:92:92:39:58, IRQ 10.
Apr 19 16:31:47 cardboardcutoutmeep kernel: eth2: Digital DC21040 Tulip rev
36 at 0xd400, EEPROM not present, 00:00:92:92:39:59, IRQ 10.
Apr 19 16:31:47 cardboardcutoutmeep kernel: eth3: Digital DC21040 Tulip rev
36 at 0xd800, EEPROM not present, 00:00:92:92:39:5A, IRQ 10.
Apr 19 16:31:47 cardboardcutoutmeep kernel: eth4: Digital DC21040 Tulip rev
36 at 0xdc00, EEPROM not present, 00:00:92:92:39:5B, IRQ 10.

now thoes HW addresses look more realistic

can any one sugeest what can be done to get the probing to be done in the
correct order ....

Thanks,

Dave