etherboot-developers — Discussion of developer issues

[Etherboot-developers] secrets behind symbol, INCLUDE_LANCE ?

[Eno C. <Eno...@Mi...>]

Dear List;

Have been studying the lance driver for some time. Of course confusion
reigns. The confusion stems from the conditional compilation symbol,
INCLUDE_LANCE. Here is why. 

In spite of the distinct possibility I am mistaken, it seems manifest,
regardless the means by which the lance driver is built, the symbol,
INCLUDE_LANCE is defined. In other words it seems there is no possibility
the symbol will be undefined.

Where the probe routine definition occurs, the entry point to lancepci_probe
is defined within an ifdef INCLUDE_LANCE. But there is no alternative
definition to serve in the case the symbol is undefined.

These two facts (?) have me scratching my head because they seem to indicate
there is no possibility INCLUDE_LANCE can ever be undefined. If this be the
case, why do we even have the symbol?

I don't mean to be picky here but I have to modify the driver to accommodate
a second nic. Further to this end it is necessary for me to understand
driver subtleties that seem to be eluding me.

Any insight to this question will be much appreciated.

Eno Compton

Re: [Etherboot-developers] Building a ROM

[Ken Y. <ke...@nl...>]

|The problem will be one of:
|- Your code patches are being interpreted as the "third byte" of the option
|ROM, and are the source of the 1KB size.  Make sure that the first three
|bytes of the binary code you are feeding to makeROM are "0x55, 0xAA, <size
|in 512 byte blocks>" (from "loader.S").
|- You fed a small piece of "test" code to makerom to check it's operation,
|and although the first three bytes are correct, the overall size of this
|code _is_ 1KB.

Or he was using a buggy version of as86 and the starting bytes are not
55 AA at all. I have added a check for this to makerom.c so that it will
give the appropriate message in this case.

Re: [Etherboot-developers] Building a ROM

[Robb M. <ma...@ac...>]

Building a ROMFrom makerom.c, function getromsize():
---
 size = buffer[2] * 512L;
 /* sizes are usually powers of two, warn if not */
 for (i = MINROMSIZE; i < MAXROMSIZE && i < size; i *= 2)
  ;
 if (size > 0 && i > size)
  fprintf(stderr, "%ld is a strange size for a boot ROM\n",
   size);
---
The third byte in PC OptionROMs indicates the size in 512 byte blocks. In
the etherboot loader ("loader.S") this is set to zero, so that makerom will
automatically size it based on the binary filesize.  If the third byte is
non-zero, it is assumed the binary file must fit into the specified size.

The "...is a stranges size for a boot ROM" message is displayed in your case
because MINROMSIZE is set to 8KB, and your ROM is 1024KB.  Note that the 8KB
min is arbitrary (PC OptionROMs _can_ be as small as 512 bytes, but of
course it is not likely etherboot will ever be that small...).

The problem will be one of:
- Your code patches are being interpreted as the "third byte" of the option
ROM, and are the source of the 1KB size.  Make sure that the first three
bytes of the binary code you are feeding to makeROM are "0x55, 0xAA, <size
in 512 byte blocks>" (from "loader.S").
- You fed a small piece of "test" code to makerom to check it's operation,
and although the first three bytes are correct, the overall size of this
code _is_ 1KB.

Robb.

----- Original Message -----
From: Wolf, Paul
To: 'eth...@li...'
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 2:46 PM
Subject: [Etherboot-developers] Building a ROM

I am trying to rebuild the Etherboot 4.6.12 project.  I need to add some
space in the ROM write after the header info and before the boot INT19 code.
I enabled the AS86 flag in the MAKEFILE but it gives me an error when it
does MAKEROM. The error is 1024 is a strange size for a ROM.  I have not mad
any code changes yet, I am just trying to see if I can build the code.  Any
help would be great!

Paul

RE: [Etherboot-developers] Building a ROM

[Marty C. <md...@th...>]

Are you on the Etherboot developers list?  I'd prefer to hold this 
conversation on the list if possible, because if someone else has the 
problem the answer may be heard by them.

On 2/4/2001 10:30 AM Wolf, Paul Wo...@Ul... wrote:
>I have not made any changes yet to the source code, I am just trying to
>build the project.  I reloaded the 4.6.12 code just to make sure I have good
>copy.  I am not sure what gcc and distribution is? I am building this on a
>LINUX box with 6.x revision. (I am home right now don't know the revision).

What kind of Linux?  You mean Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake?

gcc --version

will tell you the version of the compiler.

>Just a little history, We are a POS (point of sale) hardware manufacture.  I
>have been working with a major retailer to create a Linux kernel that will
>load onto a diskless PC to run a browser.  They have a AIX Unix host.  We
>have been successful doing this with PXE. But I would like to use
>EtherBoot. 

>I have used ROM-O-Matic to build a ROM for RealTek 8139B and the
>Bios does not detect it.  But it does detect the PXE if I append it to the
>BIOS or use the BOOT ROM on the integrated network card.  

What BIOS is it?  How old is the BIOS?  Is it a PnP compatible BIOS?
And how long ago did you get the ROM from ROM-o-matic.net?  If it has 
been more than a week, please try again.  I added a PnP patch, which 
should help with detection.

>I have looked at
>the header data in PXE and EB.  They have some differences.  So what I want
>to do is rebuild the EB with some header changes.  But I cant get the raw
>code to rebuild if I enable the ASM flags. 

Would you kindly stop describing the problem and simply supply actual 
output?
With due respect, messages saying "I did everything right and it doesn't 
work" without debugging output are both pointless and irritating.  If you 
could show us your Makefile and the output of make, we could try to 
reproduce your problem.  You could have a simple typo -- we all make 
mistakes.  You could be trying to use a known bad version of GCC or AS86. 
Send input, output, and tool versions, please!

>Also I created a COM file with EB and moved it to a floppy and it works
>great, so I know it will work if I can fix the header up.

It does sound like a PnP header problem.  On my RedHat 6.2 and 7.0 
systems, I am able to recompile Etherboot without problems by 
uncommenting the single AS86 define in the Makefile which says us 'as86'.

What you might try is downloading 4.7.18 from etherboot.sourceforge.net 
and seeing if that fixes your problem.  4.6.12 does not have the PnP 
patch included, and so you have to apply it manually by getting the patch 
from the patch manager on sourceforge and applying it manually.

I applied the patch to rom-o-matic's 4.6.12 and 4.7.17 about a week ago, 
so they should be generating PnP compliant ROMs.  Compare a 4.6.12 ROM 
from ROM-o-matic.net to what you have now.

You also need to run the RSET8139.EXE DOS (or equivalent) program to 
configure your 8139 (even if it is on the motherboard).  This program 
allows one to enable the ROM and set the size of it.  Unless you do this, 
the BIOS will not detect it.

I hope this is of some help to you.  I hope also you understand my 
frustration at trying to help you debug without any hard data.  Let us 
know how it goes...

Marty

---
    Try: http://rom-o-matic.net/ to make Etherboot images instantly.

   Name: Martin D. Connor
US Mail: Entity Cyber, Inc.; P.O. Box 391827; Cambridge, MA 02139; USA
  Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046 
  Email: md...@th...
    Web: http://www.thinguin.org/

Re: [Etherboot-developers] Building a ROM

[Marty C. <md...@th...>]

On 2/3/2001 2:46 PM Wolf, Paul Wo...@Ul... wrote:
>I am trying to rebuild the Etherboot 4.6.12 project.  I need to add some
>space in the ROM write after the header info and before the boot INT19 code.
>I enabled the AS86 flag in the MAKEFILE but it gives me an error when it
>does MAKEROM. The error is 1024 is a strange size for a ROM.  I have not mad
>any code changes yet, I am just trying to see if I can build the code.  Any
>help would be great!

What gcc version and distribution are you using?  Could you provide the 
output from make?  This information may allow us to spot the problem.

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say you somehow managed to get 
something in the space where makerom expected a PCI or PNP header field 
(probably the "size" header field.  

Of course, it's hard to know what your modifications are and how they 
might have confused makerom if you don't provide the source code for them 
:-)

Marty

---
    Try: http://rom-o-matic.net/ to make Etherboot images instantly.

   Name: Martin D. Connor
US Mail: Entity Cyber, Inc.; P.O. Box 391827; Cambridge, MA 02139; USA
  Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046 
  Email: md...@th...
    Web: http://www.thinguin.org/

[Etherboot-developers] Building a ROM

[Wolf, P. <Wo...@Ul...>]

I am trying to rebuild the Etherboot 4.6.12 project.  I need to add some
space in the ROM write after the header info and before the boot INT19 code.
I enabled the AS86 flag in the MAKEFILE but it gives me an error when it
does MAKEROM. The error is 1024 is a strange size for a ROM.  I have not mad
any code changes yet, I am just trying to see if I can build the code.  Any
help would be great!


Paul

   

Re: [Etherboot-developers] dhcpd won't answer the initial broadcast from the client

[Ken Y. <ke...@nl...>]

>I have religiously followed the READMEs from the distribution. Have the
>initial broadcast packet coming from the client. But the dhcpd server ( runs
>on vinilla RedHat 6.1) will not answer that sucker. Have put a monitor on
>the net and verified the packet is as it should be. Have studied the
>/etc/dhcpd.conf file which I copy here.
>
>option domain-name "test.com";
>option domain-name-servers 192.168.0.1;
>option broadcast-address 192.168.0.255;
>subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
>	filename "/tftpdir/vmlinuz.xterm";
>	host xterm {
>		hardware ethernet 00:40:53:01:22:36;
>		option host-name "xterm";

I don't use this option. I use

use-host-decl-names on;

in the global options.

>		fixed-address 192.168.0.100;
>	}
>}

How come you are handing out an address of 0.100 on a subnet of 1.0,
with a netmask of /24?

Also maybe your MAC address is wrong?

Reply-To: set to etherboot-users list where this discussion belongs.

Re: [Etherboot-developers] dhcpd won't answer the initial broadcast from the client

[Donald J C. <dj...@ci...>]

Eno Compton wrote:
> option domain-name "test.com";
> option domain-name-servers 192.168.0.1;
> option broadcast-address 192.168.0.255;
> subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
>         filename "/tftpdir/vmlinuz.xterm";
>         host xterm {
>                 hardware ethernet 00:40:53:01:22:36;
>                 option host-name "xterm";
>                 fixed-address 192.168.0.100;
>         }
> }
> 
> Have verified dhcpd is running. Every time I change dhcpd.conf, I kill the
> server daemon and restart it to insure the new conf file gets read. Can't
> think how to proceed.
> 
> Have any ideas?

What version of dhcpd are you using?  I am using ISC dhcdp V3.0b2pl9,
and your config file works fine for me (on a Mandrake 7.1 system.)
I believe in the past I had problems with an older dhcpd where it
would not start properly if I did not have a "range ..." entry.
I assume you have looked closely at the output and /var/log/messages
after starting dhcpd?

-Don

--
Don Christensen     Senior Software Development Engineer
  dj...@ci...     MMABU - Mid-Market Access Business Unit
  Cisco Systems    ComLOB - Commercial Line of Business
   San Jose, CA   "It was a new day yesterday, but it's an old day now."

[Etherboot-developers] dhcpd won't answer the initial broadcast from the client

[Eno C. <Eno...@Mi...>]

Thanks, Ken,

That helps much. I am sorry about this but I have given this my best shot
and I cannot get dhcpd to dance. Here's another question.

I have religiously followed the READMEs from the distribution. Have the
initial broadcast packet coming from the client. But the dhcpd server ( runs
on vinilla RedHat 6.1) will not answer that sucker. Have put a monitor on
the net and verified the packet is as it should be. Have studied the
/etc/dhcpd.conf file which I copy here.

option domain-name "test.com";
option domain-name-servers 192.168.0.1;
option broadcast-address 192.168.0.255;
subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
	filename "/tftpdir/vmlinuz.xterm";
	host xterm {
		hardware ethernet 00:40:53:01:22:36;
		option host-name "xterm";
		fixed-address 192.168.0.100;
	}
}

Have verified dhcpd is running. Every time I change dhcpd.conf, I kill the
server daemon and restart it to insure the new conf file gets read. Can't
think how to proceed. 

Have any ideas?

Eno

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Ken Yap [mailto:ke...@nl...] 
Sent:	Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:15 PM
To:	eth...@li...
Subject:	Re: [Etherboot-developers] what is meant by, ..." set a path
explicitly to tftpd "... ? 

|The 4.7.17 distribution states, in README-3.html, "It is recommended that
|you set a path explicitly to tftpd instead of relying on any defaults. For
|example:
|
|tftp   dgram   udp   wait   root   /usr/sbin/tcpd   in.tftpd   /tftpdir
|
|Would somebody please explain what this means?

That's a typical line to be put in /etc/inetd.conf. The meanings of the
various fields are explained in the man page for inetd, but the ones of
interests are the last three. They say: run tcpd (tcpwrappers), and when
a connection comes in, invoke /usr/sbin/in.tftpd (implied directory),
with an argument of /tftpdir.

Now it is possible to invoke in.tftpd with no arguments and this
typically means, accept the compiled-in default top directory of
/tftpboot. I do not like this because:

1. I prefer to keep my boot images separate from the exported root
trees; they are different kettles of fish.

2. I do not like files in my exported root trees to be available to
tftp, e.g. someone might do:

	tftp /tftpboot/xterminal/etc/passwd

and get hold of passwords to crack.

Hence my practice is to explicitly tell in.tftpd which is to be the top
directory for boot images.  Things may vary a bit depending on which
tftpd you are using (there are several around).

_______________________________________________
Etherboot-developers mailing list
Eth...@li...
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/etherboot-developers

Re: [Etherboot-developers] what is meant by, ..." set a path explicitly to tftpd "... ?

[Ken Y. <ke...@nl...>]

|The 4.7.17 distribution states, in README-3.html, "It is recommended that
|you set a path explicitly to tftpd instead of relying on any defaults. For
|example:
|
|tftp   dgram   udp   wait   root   /usr/sbin/tcpd   in.tftpd   /tftpdir
|
|Would somebody please explain what this means?

That's a typical line to be put in /etc/inetd.conf. The meanings of the
various fields are explained in the man page for inetd, but the ones of
interests are the last three. They say: run tcpd (tcpwrappers), and when
a connection comes in, invoke /usr/sbin/in.tftpd (implied directory),
with an argument of /tftpdir.

Now it is possible to invoke in.tftpd with no arguments and this
typically means, accept the compiled-in default top directory of
/tftpboot. I do not like this because:

1. I prefer to keep my boot images separate from the exported root
trees; they are different kettles of fish.

2. I do not like files in my exported root trees to be available to
tftp, e.g. someone might do:

	tftp /tftpboot/xterminal/etc/passwd

and get hold of passwords to crack.

Hence my practice is to explicitly tell in.tftpd which is to be the top
directory for boot images.  Things may vary a bit depending on which
tftpd you are using (there are several around).

[Etherboot-developers] what is meant by, ..." set a path explicitly to tftpd "... ?

[Eno C. <Eno...@Mi...>]

The 4.7.17 distribution states, in README-3.html, "It is recommended that
you set a path explicitly to tftpd instead of relying on any defaults. For
example:


tftp   dgram   udp   wait   root   /usr/sbin/tcpd   in.tftpd   /tftpdir


Would somebody please explain what this means?

Thanks


Eno Compton

[Etherboot-developers] Etherboot 4.7.18 (development) released

[Ken Y. <ke...@nl...>]

First a big wave to Marty, Jim and others at LinuxWorld Expo who are
demonstrating Etherboot, LTSP, and rom-o-matic. Good on you guys.

I have released Etherboot 4.7.18 at http://etherboot.sourceforge.net/

Changes in 4.7.18:

+ Marty Connor did it again! He found a long standing bug in the PnP ROM
header which caused it not to be recognised by BIOSes. Now Etherboot ROM
images are PnP compliant. I hacked makerom.c to fill in the offset of
the ident string for the device string so that the BIOS can even print
out "Etherboot" and the device ident on boot up.

+ Made demo menu program a bit more elaborate with timeout.

+ Igor V. Kovalenko fixed the Winbond W89C840 driver to use the hardware
timer instead of CPU counter loops. Now none of the Etherboot drivers
rely on CPU speed dependent loops.

+ Small fix to contrib/p910nd.c to not use getprotobyname which requires
libnss_files.so, which may not be installed in all environments.

+ Small change to contrib/mkffwnb to allow the user to choose ELF format
(by editing one line) instead of tagged format.

+ Patch to atftp-0.2 to make it accept a filename if the directory is a
prefix of the filename. This is needed so that valid absolute pathnames
will work. Patch sent to atftp authors.

+ Added support for filtering out replies which do not include a Vendor
Class Identifier of "Etherboot" in the Vendor Encapsulated Options. This
can be used to select only the DHCP servers which we want to get
addresses from and reject the rest.  Select the compile option
-DREQUIRE_VCI_ETHERBOOT. This requires ISC DHCPD 2 or 3 AFAIK.  (It's
not documented in DHCPD 2, but it works.) Other DHCP servers may support
VEO. (It's a RFC2132 option.)

+ Jim Thomas suggested a way, other than creating /fastboot, of
preventing fsck from running on NFS root, ln -s /bin/true
/sbin/fsck.nfs. Not verified but should work. Added to documentation.

MD5 sums:

364e21b130f1d2b14d0c67d7967762b6  etherboot-4.7.18.tar.bz2
3ff333399f49c51d4c96411a484ca0d1  etherboot-4.7.18.tar.gz

Re: [Etherboot-developers] BIOS issue ??

[Ken Y. <ke...@nl...>]

|since 4.6.10 I run into problems with Phoenix BIOS. The extension 
|starts correct, but nothing is going out through the cable... I tried 
|82559er and Davicom, both had the same issue. Turning on the 

What happens if you use one of the development releases 4.7.x?
Especially with the PnP ROM patch.

[Etherboot-developers] Re: [linuxny] Greetings from LinuxWorld Expo New York

[Marty C. <md...@th...>]

On 1/31/2001 5:28 PM Marty Connor md...@th... wrote:
>We are at LinuxWorld Expo in New York, and I've created a page with a 
>webcam so that everyone can virtually share the experience with us.  
>We'll be there 10am to 6pm EST.  I'll add some pictures and text soon, 
>but I thought you might enjoy checking it out.

I guess the URL would would be useful:

    http://www.thinguin.org/linuxworld.html

:-)

Marty

---
    Try: http://rom-o-matic.net/ to make Etherboot images instantly.

   Name: Martin D. Connor
US Mail: Entity Cyber, Inc.; P.O. Box 391827; Cambridge, MA 02139; USA
  Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046 
  Email: md...@th...
    Web: http://www.thinguin.org/

[Etherboot-developers] Greetings from LinuxWorld Expo New York

[Marty C. <md...@th...>]

We are at LinuxWorld Expo in New York, and I've created a page with a 
webcam so that everyone can virtually share the experience with us.  
We'll be there 10am to 6pm EST.  I'll add some pictures and text soon, 
but I thought you might enjoy checking it out.

It's a good show, and there is lots of interest in network booting and 
thin client technology.  We've had little time to rest during the show 
with all the people stopping by asking questions and wanting demos!

I'll let you know more when I can.  Things are going very well! 

Marty

---
    Try: http://rom-o-matic.net/ to make Etherboot images instantly.

   Name: Martin D. Connor
US Mail: Entity Cyber, Inc.; P.O. Box 391827; Cambridge, MA 02139; USA
  Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046 
  Email: md...@th...
    Web: http://www.thinguin.org/

[Etherboot-developers] BIOS issue ??

[Helmut A. <Hel...@JU...>]

Hi...

since 4.6.10 I run into problems with Phoenix BIOS. The extension 
starts correct, but nothing is going out through the cable... I tried 
82559er and Davicom, both had the same issue. Turning on the 
DEBUG with 82559er.rom showed me strange alternations in the 
TX buffer. I assume that in general it is a memory or stack issue. 
The strange thing to me, it only appears with Phoenix BIOS, older 
boards we used at JUMPtec had Award BIOS. No problems with 
Award...
Have you also experienced problems with different BIOS's??
I will talk to our BIOS buddy and ask him about memory details...

Thanks
Helmut

Re: [Etherboot-developers] Re: FIXED: Intel CA810E mobo doesn't see Etherboot Option ROM

[Ken Y. <ke...@nl...>]

>Great detective work Marty, thanks! I have placed your patch and some
>changes of mine to makerom.c so that the mfr and device strings are
>displayed by the BIOS, at http://sourceforge.net/project/etherboot
							 ^s

Oops, that should be http://sourceforge.net/projects/etherboot

>under the Patch Manager. I have provided the patch for 4.6.12, the last
>stable release. It will be part of 4.7.18 soon.

To download the patch, click on View Raw Patch, then go to File -> Save
As. This is for Netscape, something equivalent for IE should be
possible I guess.

[Etherboot-developers] Re: [Etherboot-users] RH7 glibc update

[Richard J. <rj...@im...>]

Far as I know there was only one release of RH7, I s'pose there could be 
a SP1 or some such, but that's just silly.
Anyway, rpm -Uhv --force --nodeps <rpm> will install every RPM I've come 
across. let me know how that works.

Marty Connor wrote:

> So I'm about this '' close to chucking RH7 and using another distribution 
> to demo at LinuxWorld Expo.
> 
> I just installed a virgin copy of RH7 on a machine and started to apply 
> all the package updates, and it now tells me that it can't update glibc 
> because I don't have the correct previous version.  I've tried --force 
> and other flags, but it won't do the upgrade.
> 
> I suspect that the version on the RH7 CD is too old to upgrade to the one 
> they have on their FTP site, but the intermediate versions were buggy so 
> they seem to have deleted them from their web site.
> 
> Has anyone else seen this?  Progeny (www.progeny.com) is looking might 
> good about now...

[Etherboot-developers] Re: RH7 glibc update

[Marty C. <md...@th...>]

On 1/21/2001 8:21 PM Marty Connor md...@th... wrote:
> ^%#$%@W&@#@
>I just installed a virgin copy of RH7 on a machine and started to apply 
>all the package updates, and it now tells me that it can't update glibc 
>because I don't have the correct previous version.  I've tried --force 
>and other flags, but it won't do the upgrade.

Alright, I figured it out.  RPM couldn't do the upgrade because I was 
trying to upgrade glibc-common and glibc-2.2-12 separately.  RPM needs 
both updates to appear on the same line. So:

   rpm -Uvh glibc-common
   rpm -Uvh glibc-2.2-12

won't work.
but

   rpm -Uvh glibc-common glibc-2.2-12

will work, because RPM will find the dependencies it needs in both 
packages right then.

grrrrr...

Marty

---
    Try: http://rom-o-matic.net/ to make Etherboot images instantly.

   Name: Martin D. Connor
US Mail: Entity Cyber, Inc.; P.O. Box 391827; Cambridge, MA 02139; USA
  Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046 
  Email: md...@th...
    Web: http://www.thinguin.org/

[Etherboot-developers] RH7 glibc update

[Marty C. <md...@th...>]

So I'm about this '' close to chucking RH7 and using another distribution 
to demo at LinuxWorld Expo.

I just installed a virgin copy of RH7 on a machine and started to apply 
all the package updates, and it now tells me that it can't update glibc 
because I don't have the correct previous version.  I've tried --force 
and other flags, but it won't do the upgrade.

I suspect that the version on the RH7 CD is too old to upgrade to the one 
they have on their FTP site, but the intermediate versions were buggy so 
they seem to have deleted them from their web site.

Has anyone else seen this?  Progeny (www.progeny.com) is looking might 
good about now...

Thanks,

Marty

---
    Try: http://rom-o-matic.net/ to make Etherboot images instantly.

   Name: Martin D. Connor
US Mail: Entity Cyber, Inc.; P.O. Box 391827; Cambridge, MA 02139; USA
  Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046 
  Email: md...@th...
    Web: http://www.thinguin.org/

Re: [Etherboot-developers] 82559er

[Ken Y. <ke...@nl...>]

>can you give me a short summary/introduction of memory 
>organisation of the bios extension....

0: 55
1: AA
2: number of 512 byte blocks in extension
3: entry point, called by a far call with CS=ROM segment

Bytes in extension must sum to 8-bit 0.

There are many more requirements if it's a PCI/PnP ROM, you need to
fetch the specs. They are mentioned in Marty's recent post about his
recent patch to fix PnP ROMs at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/etherboot under the Patch Manager.

Re: [Etherboot-developers] i82559er

[Ken Y. <ke...@nl...>]

>Whe have 2 products using the 82559er. I have figured out that the 
>bios ext. works fine with one product. Running it on the other 
>product didn't work. I assume the controller is up, the eeprom can 
>be accessed, but there are no packets going out of the cable. I 
>used the eepro100.c file of 4.7.13 and copied it to the 4.6.10 
>release and it worked on both products. To me it is not the driver it 
>self, but the rest of the project. Something has changed and 
>creates e.g. a runtime problem such as data segment and stack 
>crash...

So what happens if you use the eepro100 in 4.7.17 instead of copying the
driver over to 4.6.10?

[Etherboot-developers] 82559er

[Helmut A. <Hel...@ju...>]

Hi...

can you give me a short summary/introduction of memory 
organisation of the bios extension....

Thanks
Helmut

Re: [Etherboot-developers] i82559er

[Helmut A. <Hel...@ju...>]

Hi...

> I have a feeling that the 82559er and other new models didn't really
> work until 4.7.13 or so when the changes for EEPROs with 256 byte config
> EEPROMs were finally correctly introduced.  Could you please have a look
> at the latest 4.7.17 and see if the changes are the same as what you
> have done?  If not please send me some changes that work for you. I have
> no way of testing them myself.

Whe have 2 products using the 82559er. I have figured out that the 
bios ext. works fine with one product. Running it on the other 
product didn't work. I assume the controller is up, the eeprom can 
be accessed, but there are no packets going out of the cable. I 
used the eepro100.c file of 4.7.13 and copied it to the 4.6.10 
release and it worked on both products. To me it is not the driver it 
self, but the rest of the project. Something has changed and 
creates e.g. a runtime problem such as data segment and stack 
crash...
I now try to figure out what the differences between the two 
products are.
I hope we can solv the problem soon... we don't sell the etherboot 
bios extensions, I just recommend it to customers and try to push 
it through the company group. It is a great project!!!!!

Helmut

Re: [Etherboot-developers] Re: FIXED: Intel CA810E mobo doesn't see Etherboot Option ROM

[Ken Y. <ke...@nl...>]

>I have created a patch for the "loader.S" file in Etherboot which fixes 
>this problem.  I have tested this patch by burning ROMs and Etherbooting 
>with an MX98715-based board on 4 different motherboards, some with legacy 
>slots, some without, and with various BIOSes.  The patch is available at:

Great detective work Marty, thanks! I have placed your patch and some
changes of mine to makerom.c so that the mfr and device strings are
displayed by the BIOS, at http://sourceforge.net/project/etherboot
under the Patch Manager. I have provided the patch for 4.6.12, the last
stable release. It will be part of 4.7.18 soon.