Subject: Re: trouble with pcmcia ethernets
To: Aymeric Vincent <email@example.com>
From: Chuck Silvers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/11/2001 19:54:57
a similar quirk does indeed make the card work on this old toshiba, thanks.
I agree that this seems to be a controller issue rather than a card issue,
since the same card works just fine at 0x400 in a newer laptop.
On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 07:44:38PM +0100, Aymeric Vincent wrote:
> Martin Husemann <email@example.com> writes:
> > Maybe I don't get the point, but IMHO: when the card needs to be mapped at
> > a special address in order to work, this should be stated in the CIS entry.
> > If this is not in the CIS, the CIS is broken and the card should get a
> > quirk entry.
> It's not so simple: the problem seems to be related more to the PCMCIA
> *controller* than to the cards themselves. There are too many
> ``broken'' cards to consider the problem comes from them only.
> Furthermore, I feel reluctant to add CIS quirks (although that's what
> I did) just to make the card work on the i386 while it works perfectly
> in my Amiga. CIS quirks should not be used to circumvent problems
> pertaining to a specific controller.
> > Any default will fail for someone.
> This may be true. That's why we should investigate the idea of
> detecting the PCMCIA address bus size: 0x300 fits within 12 bits
> whereas 0x400 does not.
> But again, I don't have enough evidence and experience with the i386
> to find TRT to do here alone.