Jeff and Felipe, I naturally tried the default e100 first when I installed SuSE 8.1 and only tried the eepro100.c when the e100 failed identically. The e100 is harder to debug w/o MII so felt the e100pro with MII might shed some light. Any suggestions. I'll happily assist in resolving this. Paul Hernandez 408-374-8686 x202 Campbell, CA -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Garzik [mailto:jgarzik@pobox.com] Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 17:47 PM To: Felipe W Damasio Cc: Paul Hernandez; Linux-net; netdev@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: NIC on 2.4.19 SMP Felipe W Damasio wrote: > On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 16:57, Paul Hernandez wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>It was suggested to me that I forward this issue to you both. >> >>OS: 2.4.19.SuSE SMP >>Motherboard: Intel Dual P4 Xeon Server board SE7500CW2 >>(latest bios off Intel site) >>On-borad LAN controller: Intel 82557/8/9 [Ether Pro 100] (rev 0d) >>Addional NIC's tried: 3-COM 3C-905C-TX-M, Netgear FA311 >> >>dmesg output: >> >>e100: eth0: Intel(R) 8255x-based Ethernet Adapter > > >>SIOCGMIIPHY on eth0 failed: >>Operation not supported >>no MII interfaces found > > > Try using the eepro100.c driver from the kernel, and not the one from > Intel (the driver from the kernel supports SIOCGMIIPHY). > > Though it does not seem a problem with the driver, you should try using > the one from the kernel and see if it helps. I agree that comparison is useful, though it should be pointed out that ethtool is preferred for e100... Jeff - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
