3com cardbus ethernet

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.qnxrtp.newuser
1

I just grabbed a copy of qnxrtp. I spent the summer working with qnx4
for robotics, and I was very impressed with it, thanks to all involved
with making this freely available.

Now on to the problem.

I installed qnx on my laptop, a dell inspiron 500. It seemed to work
fine, but it is not finding my network card. I have a 3CXFE575CT,
basically just the 10/100 3com cardbus card. pci shows the device. It
seems that I’m able to load the driver with the ttcpip stack, but pings
return a -1 error, and route says something along the lines of operation
not supported. I figured that was due to limitations with the tiny
stack. Using the full tcpip, the driver seems to load, but it does
not create the /dev/io-net/en0 file, so I can’t run ifconfig. I’d
appreciate any help I can get, thanks.

-Aaron Solochek
leko@cmu.edu

2

I got some more information:

nicinfo

nicinfo: Could not open: /dev/io-net/en0, (No such file or directory)

pci

…
Class = Network (Ethernet)
Vendor ID = 10b7h, 3com Corporation
Device ID = 5275h, Unknown Unknown
PCI index = 0h
IO Address = fe00h enabled
Mem Address = ffee0000h enabled
Mem Address = ffee0080h enabled
Expansion ROM = ffec0000h disabled
PCI Int Piin = INT A
Interrupt line = 11

\

pin

Sock Func Type Flags PID
Base Size IRQ
1 0 Network C–I—X–SAW 73741 0xfe00
128 11
1 Empty —MF-------- None
2 Empty —MF-------- None
2 Empty —MF-------- None

ifconfig en0 up

ifconfig: SIOCGIFFLAGS en0: No such file or directory

pccard-launch ‘0x600, io-net -del900 ioport=0xfe00, irq=11’

this just sits there… is it running? should it be in the background?

Also, slaying io-net and then rerunning it can cause this:

ifconfig en0 up

ifconfig: socket: No such file or directory

How does one work with these sockets?


My installation is sort of stalled until I can get network working.

Thanks

-Aaron Solochek
leko@cmu.edu



Aaron Solochek wrote:

I just grabbed a copy of qnxrtp. I spent the summer working with qnx4
for robotics, and I was very impressed with it, thanks to all involved
with making this freely available.

Now on to the problem.

I installed qnx on my laptop, a dell inspiron 500. It seemed to work
fine, but it is not finding my network card. I have a 3CXFE575CT,
basically just the 10/100 3com cardbus card. pci shows the device. It
seems that I’m able to load the driver with the ttcpip stack, but pings
return a -1 error, and route says something along the lines of operation
not supported. I figured that was due to limitations with the tiny
stack. Using the full tcpip, the driver seems to load, but it does
not create the /dev/io-net/en0 file, so I can’t run ifconfig. I’d
appreciate any help I can get, thanks.

-Aaron Solochek
leko@cmu.edu

3

Aaron Solochek <leko@cmu.edu> wrote:

Sock Func Type Flags PID
Base Size IRQ
1 0 Network C–I—X–SAW 73741 0xfe00
128 11
1 Empty —MF-------- None
2 Empty —MF-------- None
2 Empty —MF-------- None

ifconfig en0 up

ifconfig: SIOCGIFFLAGS en0: No such file or directory

pccard-launch ‘0x600, io-net -del900 ioport=0xfe00, irq=11’

Try just doing this…

io-net -del900 -p ttcpip &

chris

–

cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”

Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

4

I tried that, I’m not sure what exactly I’m looking for, but there still is
no /dev/io-net en0.

Also, what is the benefit of the ttcpip, I have plenty of ram, etc, I would
sort of like full functionality.

-Aaron

Chris McKillop wrote:

Aaron Solochek <> leko@cmu.edu> > wrote:
Sock Func Type Flags PID
Base Size IRQ
1 0 Network C–I—X–SAW 73741 0xfe00
128 11
1 Empty —MF-------- None
2 Empty —MF-------- None
2 Empty —MF-------- None

ifconfig en0 up

ifconfig: SIOCGIFFLAGS en0: No such file or directory

pccard-launch ‘0x600, io-net -del900 ioport=0xfe00, irq=11’



Try just doing this…

io-net -del900 -p ttcpip &

chris

–

cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL

5

Aaron Solochek <leko@cmu.edu> wrote:

I tried that, I’m not sure what exactly I’m looking for, but there still is
no /dev/io-net en0.

Also, what is the benefit of the ttcpip, I have plenty of ram, etc, I would
sort of like full functionality.

I would venture that you will never notice the difference between the tiny
and the full stack. The full stack supports things like aliasing, forwarding
and other more advance tcp/ip functionality that most people never even
use. :slight_smile:

If you run io-net as follows (don’t forget to “slay -f io-net” first)…

io-net -d el900 verbose -p ttcpip &

What (if anything) gets outputed from the driver?

chris

\

cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”

Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

6

“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:8tlgnk$npb$2@nntp.qnx.com…

Aaron Solochek <> leko@cmu.edu> > wrote:
I tried that, I’m not sure what exactly I’m looking for, but there still
is
no /dev/io-net en0.

Also, what is the benefit of the ttcpip, I have plenty of ram, etc, I
would
sort of like full functionality.


I would venture that you will never notice the difference between the tiny
and the full stack. The full stack supports things like aliasing,
forwarding
and other more advance tcp/ip functionality that most people never even
use. > :slight_smile:

So far for me the only reason to use the full stack is to run Samba.

If you run io-net as follows (don’t forget to “slay -f io-net” first)…

io-net -d el900 verbose -p ttcpip &

What (if anything) gets outputed from the driver?

chris

\

cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL

7

Ok.running that doesn’t result in any output. When I hit enter, however, I get
[1] + Done io-net -d el900 verbose -


As for the tiny stack, I don’t need anything fancy, but I thought that the tiny
stack didn’t support ifconfig and route, and that it someone dealt with those
issues differently… Is that not the case?


-Aaron



Chris McKillop wrote:

Aaron Solochek <> leko@cmu.edu> > wrote:
I tried that, I’m not sure what exactly I’m looking for, but there still is
no /dev/io-net en0.

Also, what is the benefit of the ttcpip, I have plenty of ram, etc, I would
sort of like full functionality.


I would venture that you will never notice the difference between the tiny
and the full stack. The full stack supports things like aliasing, forwarding
and other more advance tcp/ip functionality that most people never even
use. > :slight_smile:

If you run io-net as follows (don’t forget to “slay -f io-net” first)…

io-net -d el900 verbose -p ttcpip &

What (if anything) gets outputed from the driver?

chris

–

cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL

8

Aaron Solochek wrote:

Ok.running that doesn’t result in any output. When I hit enter, however, I get
[1] + Done io-net -d el900 verbose -

As for the tiny stack, I don’t need anything fancy, but I thought that the tiny
stack didn’t support ifconfig and route, and that it someone dealt with those
issues differently… Is that not the case?

Yes, but that should not bother you much. What could bother one is, tiny
stack does not support Unix Domain Dockets (and unlikely will). It also
does not support bunch of socket options, like SO_KEEPALIVE, SO_LINGER,
SO_SNDBUF/SO_RCVBUF and that might translate into poor performance,
particularly for servers like Apache. Of course, most people don’t run
servers, but UDS is real problem. Many Unix packages need it.

  • igor

-Aaron

Chris McKillop wrote:

Aaron Solochek <> leko@cmu.edu> > wrote:
I tried that, I’m not sure what exactly I’m looking for, but there still is
no /dev/io-net en0.

Also, what is the benefit of the ttcpip, I have plenty of ram, etc, I would
sort of like full functionality.


I would venture that you will never notice the difference between the tiny
and the full stack. The full stack supports things like aliasing, forwarding
and other more advance tcp/ip functionality that most people never even
use. > :slight_smile:

If you run io-net as follows (don’t forget to “slay -f io-net” first)…

io-net -d el900 verbose -p ttcpip &

What (if anything) gets outputed from the driver?

chris

–

cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL

9

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

Yes, but that should not bother you much. What could bother one is, tiny
stack does not support Unix Domain Dockets (and unlikely will). It also
does not support bunch of socket options, like SO_KEEPALIVE, SO_LINGER,
SO_SNDBUF/SO_RCVBUF and that might translate into poor performance,
particularly for servers like Apache. Of course, most people don’t run
servers, but UDS is real problem. Many Unix packages need it.

If this is the case, how do I set the default route? It makes sense that I can’t
ping if I can’t set the route…

10

Aaron Solochek wrote:

Igor Kovalenko wrote:



Yes, but that should not bother you much. What could bother one is, tiny
stack does not support Unix Domain Dockets (and unlikely will). It also
does not support bunch of socket options, like SO_KEEPALIVE, SO_LINGER,
SO_SNDBUF/SO_RCVBUF and that might translate into poor performance,
particularly for servers like Apache. Of course, most people don’t run
servers, but UDS is real problem. Many Unix packages need it.

If this is the case, how do I set the default route? It makes sense that
I can’t ping if I can’t set the route…

did you ever get your 3com working. I have the same problem with my 905b

when pinging.

11

No, I haven’t. If you do, could you post everything you did to get it working?

Paul wrote:

Aaron Solochek wrote:

Igor Kovalenko wrote:



Yes, but that should not bother you much. What could bother one is, tiny
stack does not support Unix Domain Dockets (and unlikely will). It also
does not support bunch of socket options, like SO_KEEPALIVE, SO_LINGER,
SO_SNDBUF/SO_RCVBUF and that might translate into poor performance,
particularly for servers like Apache. Of course, most people don’t run
servers, but UDS is real problem. Many Unix packages need it.

If this is the case, how do I set the default route? It makes sense that
I can’t ping if I can’t set the route…

did you ever get your 3com working. I have the same problem with my 905b
when pinging.