From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 22 12:18:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA24407 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:18:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (gdi.uoregon.edu [128.223.170.30]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA24399 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:18:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA03989; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:17:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:17:49 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White X-Sender: dwhite@localhost Reply-To: Doug White To: "Gregory A. Gilliss" cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 3C589 'C' and 3C589 'D' In-Reply-To: <199701212246.OAA04466@localhost.netpublishing.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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