On Sunday 02 March 2003 01:35 am, you struggled free to say:
-- Steve Nordquist <si...@birch.net>
> I suspect you're running into desiderata concerning how your
> modules were compiled, and perhaps a bit of data the chipset's
> contributing during bus enum.
Oops! Correction! You have no error, only warnings, and just need
to get a SANE backend to connect to your device, i.e. add options in
/etc/modules.conf and/or modprobe the next iitem in the chain towards
mounting the 1394 host and connecting 1394 devices with SANE
and its programs.....
> On Wednesday 26 February 2003 07:01 pm, you struggled free to say:
> Background:
>
> All PC CPUs are x86 compatible...you mean P4s?
There are places where non-86's have caused people
problems due to minor differences in the MB's, etc.
{I think I'm gonna toss this bit of the discussion to
the ocean, because x86 was from the beginning an
AMD standard term for compatibility, and the Centaur
chips were actually called CenX86 or such. Instead,
I'll refer you to the output of gcc and make, which
definitely note the differences in chipset and CPU.
Then there's shortening mobo to MB's and adding
apostrophe-s where posession is not meant and
the s is only for matching number (not necessary
since MB or mobo is numberless)}
The only difference I can see in these two systems
is the cpu hardware and one uses a DAC960 for the
boot drive the other boot's off an LSI SCSI card
and the CPU/MB vendors. Aside from that they are
the same kernel compiled with the same ieee options
with the same verison of gcc with the same command
line switches, same network cards, built-in sound,
and brands of SCSI peripherals. That's why I was
surprised to get a different response from the same
card on the two systems.
It took a bit for me to notice 'debian' in all you said....
Besides tracking the BIOS on each system to make
sure that's good and current with ASUS or whoever
it was, you might want to note the chipset
mentioned for each board so that any kernel
notices on them won't go unnoticed by you.
I think that what you have in particular is a bit of
module code that's...well actually it's not nagging
for personal attention, because those
warnings are common to successes also!
What's supposed ot follow, however is
ieee1394: Host added [excruciating detail] [Debian rul3z]
ieee1394: Device added [still more] [NEC or whoever]
ieee1394:: {Sane2-frontend} logging into {details....}
The x86's look like:
{Maybe I just missed the huge Chicagoland "86!" ad
campaign by Intel.}
> Does the module complain upon load, according to dmesg?
> Running RH8.x with the -multi kernel loaded, I assume....
All of the ieee drivers are modules so that I could
try to reset them, etc. insmod ohci1394 repeatably
gives me the resource length nastygram on both systems.
On the Asus MB it appears to be an error; on the I-Will
it acts like a warning.
