This is not the problem, the eepro100 chip is not know by the OS now (I will port/write the driver). So this is no topic. <Etherboot problem, see below....> The problem is that the kernel crashes in the very beginning, as if the kernel images is destryed. The last status of my investigation is, that the eepro100 driver in GRUB is not the problem (or not primary). If I don't use GRUB in the "diskless" mode, and load the kernel plus modules manually per tftp, the kernel works. So I must analyse the diskless grub stuff (and that's bad, as this is my stuff). The problem, again. Linux works. The OS we use in our company (multiboot, kernel + 2 modules) crasehd 100% if it is loaded into the diskless GRUB manually and automatic per menu. The OS sometimes crashes if same GRUB booted from DISK and the use of automatic loading per menu The OS boots successful on GRUB booted from DISK and kernel+modules loaded manually by tftp. -------- But this has nothing to do with the point I ask etherboot-developers: Question was: I do not understand the use of the files rx_buf_addr of RxFD, as it is loaded with the address of &nic->packet. (1) is the & necessary, as the NIC seems to expect the buffer address and not a pointer showing to a field with the buffer address... (2) why the nic->packet, as in the poll routine the packet is copied from the rxfd->packet to nic->packet. This point I cannot understand, and this point is independent from the problems described above. Cheers Christoph P. ----------------------------------------------------------------- private: [EMAIL PROTECTED] company: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ken Yap wrote: > > |I have the problem downloading the OS kernel image to 1MB > |(0x00100000), via GRUB / tftpboot (*** not etherboot here ! ***) > |Booting the same kernel from the disk works ! > > Before you go off chasing bugs in eepro100.c, make sure that the source > in GRUB is recent. There was a bug fixed in recent Etherboot > distributions where the NIC was not turned off after loading and > deposited stray packets in memory. (eepro100_disable was not > implemented.) As I understand it the source in GRUB is a bit behind. > > _______________________________________________ > Etherboot-developers mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/etherboot-developers _______________________________________________ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub