Craig,

What card are u using. Is it a tulip card based on Digital or LITE chips? I
am using Linksys 10/100 MB card and it uses the Lite chip as Matt says.
I had trouble with the card in 6.0 aso I downloaded the tulip source file
from Linksys and compiled as per the instructions and it worked.

Now in using LM 7.0-2 and the tulip driver installed without a hitch.

Cheers
Sridhar

----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: [expert] Some Tulip help, please


> Matt, The good news is that I have finally got the new tulip to compile.
The
> bad news is still eth0 will not initialize,  insmod still gives me a
device
> busy. This card is junk........Let me know how your install goes......
> Craig
>
> "Zaleski, Matthew (M.E.)" wrote:
>
> > You might try searching the tulip archives on the link that Peter gave.
> > Which model of network card are you using.
> >
> > Also that website talks about needing more that just the .c file (for
PCI
> > detection apparently).  And there is a diagnostic program there as well.
> >
> > This weekend I'll be loading a mdk7.1 with tulip drivers for my Linksys
> > cards.  I just found out (via that webpage) that the linksys boards
don't
> > use DEC Tulip chips; they have Lite-On PNIC chips which just happen to
be
> > similar enough that the tulip.o driver only needed minor mods to work.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 5:39 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [expert] Some Tulip help, please
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter , Matt and Bob,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the help. I am using 7.1 Mandrake, and I have
> > > tried both the
> > > tulip.o that comes as part of the Mandrake install, and it
> > > did not work. So I
> > > thought I better try newer versions by getting new tulip and
> > > compiling. This
> > > new tulip will not compile, complains about not having some
> > > files. Another
> > > very helpful guy, Bob, even sent me his tulip.o.  This tulip
> > > would not pass
> > > the depmod -a, complained about "Unresolved Symbol" in the
> > > tulip.o. I did have
> > > a irq conflict but resolved this by disabling usb in BIOS. It
> > > seems all
> > > setting are correct now but I am getting device busy with I
> > > try insmod tulip,
> > > and that is all the info I find in /var/log/messages. Any
> > > thoughts, gents.
> > > Again, thanks for all the help.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > Peter Loron wrote:
> > >
> > > > No ideas on why it won't compile, never had any problems
> > > with my boxes.
> > > > The tulip page is here:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.scyld.com/network/tulip.html
> > > >
> > > > -Pete
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Zaleski, Matthew (M.E.) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can't help you with the compile problem.  My copy of
> > > mdk7.1 has the tulip
> > > > > driver in my lib/modules directory.  What version of mdk
> > > are you running?
> > > > >
> > > > > Matt
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Craig Woods [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 11:56 PM
> > > > > > To: Expert
> > > > > > Subject: [expert] Some Tulip help, please
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can not get the tulip driver for an eth0 to compile.
> > > I am using the
> > > > > > argument: gcc -DMODULE -D_KERNEL_
> > > -I/usr/src/linux/net/inet -Wall
> > > > > > -Wstrict-prototypes -O6 -c tulip.c '[ -f
> > > > > > /usr/include/linux//modversions.h ] && echo -DMODVERSIONS' This
> > > > > > statement is entered on one line, and the output should
> > > give me a
> > > > > > tulip.o from a tulip.c. Am I right? Has anyone compliled this
> > > > > > "bad_boy"?
> > > > > > Simpler yet, could someone please direct me to a pre-compiled
> > > > > > version of
> > > > > > the tulip driver. It would make my life so much better.
> > > Thank you so
> > > > > > very much (whomever you might be).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Craig
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>


Reply via email to