Very Computer

by **Borries Demel** » Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:00:00

Quote:>to detect the card. I manually compiled a kernel that specifically
>included EtherExpress drivers hardcoded into the kernel. No luck either.
>Do I have to specify the location, IRQ, base address, etc. on the lilo
>prompt line? If so, what's the correct syntax?

I finally got the card to be recognized by the kernel by resetting the RAM
size to 64 KB (using the DOS utility "SOFTSET.EXE"). Before, the setting
was "0", I guess linux needs some non-zero RAM setting. Strange, the card
works properly under DOS/Windows...

-Borries

by **Markus Gutschk** » Tue, 10 Dec 1996 04:00:00

> I finally got the card to be recognized by the kernel by resetting the RAM
> size to 64 KB (using the DOS utility "SOFTSET.EXE"). Before, the setting
> was "0", I guess linux needs some non-zero RAM setting. Strange, the card
> works properly under DOS/Windows...

It is quite common that add-on cards allow both I/O based and memory
based accesses for controlling them. Often, the driver is at liberty
to decide which interface it prefers to use. As a general rule,
though, memory based accesses are a lot faster than I/O based
accesses. Frequently, DOS drivers do not fully exploit the
capabilities of the hardware, so it is possible that the DOS driver
did not bother about the size of the memory area because it never even
tried to access it, whereas the Linux driver was tuned for maximum
performance and thus required a memory area.

This information is based on my general experience with (ISA bus)
hardware and DOS driver software. As I do not know the EE card, it
might not fully apply in your case.

Markus

--

Schlage 5a
D-48268 Greven-Gimbte
Germany

Very Computer

EtherExpress ISA/16 bit not recognized by kernels - SOLVED

EtherExpress ISA/16 bit not recognized by kernels - SOLVED

EtherExpress ISA/16 bit not recognized by kernels - SOLVED