From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 26 11:57:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FDC16A4CE; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:57:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.sentex.ca (smtp3.sentex.ca [64.7.153.18]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CB043D2D; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:57:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from avscan1.sentex.ca (avscan1.sentex.ca [199.212.134.11]) by smtp3.sentex.ca (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1QJvQOp066717; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:57:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by avscan1.sentex.ca (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1QJvQxa096503; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:57:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simian.sentex.net ([192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i1QJvOZa012083; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:57:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040226145453.06e6ae30@209.112.4.2> X-Sender: mdtpop@209.112.4.2 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.3.0 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:57:59 -0500 To: Bob Bishop From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20040226192403.03dddb28@gid.co.uk> References: <6.0.3.0.0.20040226131930.10513908@209.112.4.2> <6.0.1.1.2.20040226192403.03dddb28@gid.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bad em NIC or new unrecognized NIC ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:57:30 -0000 At 02:26 PM 26/02/2004, Bob Bishop wrote: >Hi, > >At 18:25 26/2/04, Mike Tancsa wrote: >>Hi all, >> >>One of the EM nics we just got in comes up with >> >>em0: port >>0x9000-0x903f mem 0xe8700000-0xe871ffff,0xe86e0000-0xe86fffff irq 5 at >>device 0.0 on pci1 >>em0: The EEPROM Checksum Is Not Valid >>em0: Unable to initialize the hardware >>device_probe_and_attach: em0 attach returned 5 >> >>when booting. Is this just a dud or just not recognized ? > >FWIW I get something very similar under 5.2.1-RC2 on my shiny new ThinkPad >T41, so it's likely just not recognised. Actually, I worked around the problem by swapping its location with an fxp next to it. For some reason the em does not seem to like sharing its interrupt with agp0 ? The fxp seems happy enough to do it however. agp0: mem 0xe8800000-0xe887ffff,0xe0000000-0xe7ffffff irq 12 at device 2.0 on pci0 agp0: detected 892k stolen memory agp0: aperture size is 128M pcib1: at device 30.0 on pci0 pci1: on pcib1 fxp0: port 0x9000-0x903f mem 0xe8400000-0xe84fffff,0xe8741000-0xe8741fff irq 12 at device 0.0 on pci1 fxp0: Ethernet address 00:90:27:4d:87:2d inphy0: on miibus0 inphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto twe0: <3ware Storage Controller> port 0x9400-0x940f irq 15 at device 1.0 on pci1 twe0: 4 ports, Firmware FE6X 1.02.28.053, BIOS BE6X 1.07.02.005 em0: port 0x9800-0x983f mem 0xe8700000-0xe871ffff,0xe8720000-0xe873ffff irq 10 at device 3.0 on pci1 em0: Speed:N/A Duplex:N/A fxp1: port 0x9c00-0x9c3f mem 0xe8600000-0xe86fffff,0xe8740000-0xe8740fff irq 11 at device 5.0 on pci1 ---Mike