I had exactly the same experience on a thinkpad 560 and 3c589 -
	it turned out to be a port conflict - try moving it away from
	0x330-0x33f, maybe with

	options         PCIC_ISA_ALLOC_IOBASE=0x2a0
        options         PCIC_ISA_ALLOC_IOSIZE=0x060

		David/absolute

	  -=-  Maybe your misinterpretation of my actions is 
	      in conflict with your misconception of who I am  -=-

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Mark Brinicombe wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Kevin Sullivan wrote:
> 
> > What it is with 3Com Etherlink III PC cards?  I've seen ~6 different cards
> > all labeled "Etherlink III" but they've all needed slight driver changes.
> > Sometimes the ones with identical chip labels work differently.  Are 3Com
> > engineers just making random changes because they're bored?
> 
> I have a 3C589A card here that does not work either. This made a network
> install on my laptop rather interesting...
> 
> pcic0 at isa0 port 0x3e0-0x3e1 iomem 0xd0000-0xd3fff: using irq 11
> pcic0: controller 0 (Intel 82365SL Revision 1) has sockets A and B
> pcmcia0 at pcic0 controller 0 socket 0
> pcmcia0: CIS version 2.0 or 2.01
> pcmcia0: CIS info: 3Com Corporation, 3C589, TP/BNC LAN Card Ver. 2a, 000002
> pcmcia0: Manufacturer code 0x101, product 0x589
> pcmcia0: function 0: network adapter, ccr addr 10000 mask 3
> pcmcia0: function 0, config table entry 1: I/O card; irq mask ffff; iomask 4, iospace 0-f; rdybsy_active wp_active bvd_active io8 io16 irqlevel
> pcmcia0: function 0, config table entry 3: I/O card; irq mask ffff; iomask 4, iospace 0-f; rdybsy_active wp_active bvd_active io8 io16 irqlevel
> ep0 at pcmcia0 function 0 port 0x330-0x33f: 3Com 3c589 10Mbps Ethernet
> ep0: wrote 0x7ff to TX_AVAIL_THRESH, read back 0x0. Interface disabled
> pcmcia1 at pcic0 controller 0 socket 1
> 
> > So, my latest problem card is a 3C589D-TP.  The MAC address on the card is
> > 00:10:4b:a0:36:ca.  NetBSD probes it as ff:fc:4b:a0:36:ca; the first two
> > octets are wrong, the others are correct. This occurs under both 1.3.2 and
> > 1.3F (I don't have a more recent -current handy).  Is this a known problem?
> > Is it fixed in -current?
> 
> This problem is not fixed in -current (at least with my card).
> 
> Cheers,
> 				Mark
> 
>