Problem with 2 NICs, Kernel 2.6, Interface-naming

From: Thomas Wilde (thomas.wilde_at_gmx.de)
Date: 02/28/04 

Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:05:32 +0100

Hi !

This is my router-configuration:
  - Debian Woody + some updated packages for Kernel 2.6
  - Kernel 2.6.3
  - NIC1: AMD PCnet/PCI
  - NIC2: NE2000-compatible (ISApnp)

For security reasons I want this system to run without modules, so I
included all necessary drivers into my kernel config.

So far, everything's fine, but:

----<dmesg>----
Feb 28 18:09:23 testbox kernel: pcnet32.c:v1.27b 01.10.2002
tsbogend@alpha.franken.de
Feb 28 18:09:23 testbox kernel: pcnet32: PCnet/PCI II 79C970A at 0x1000,
00 80 5f 4a 29 03 assigned IRQ 11.
Feb 28 18:09:23 testbox kernel: eth0: registered as PCnet/PCI II 79C970A
Feb 28 18:09:23 testbox kernel: pcnet32: 1 cards_found.
Feb 28 18:09:24 testbox kernel: pnp: Device 01:01.00 activated.
Feb 28 18:09:24 testbox kernel: ne.c: ISAPnP reports Generic PNP at i/o
0x240, irq 5.
Feb 28 18:09:24 testbox kernel: ne.c:v1.10 9/23/94 Donald Becker
(becker@scyld.com)
Feb 28 18:09:25 testbox kernel: Last modified Nov 1, 2000 by Paul Gortmaker
Feb 28 18:09:25 testbox kernel: NE*000 ethercard probe at 0x240: 00 40
05 60 b2 7a
Feb 28 18:09:26 testbox kernel: eth0: NE2000 found at 0x240, using IRQ 5.
Feb 28 18:09:26 testbox kernel: eth0: interrupt from stopped card
Feb 28 18:09:26 testbox kernel: pnp: Device 01:01.00 disabled.
----</dmesg>----

Seems like the kernel tries to use the same interface-name for both
NICs... strange, but I tried the following boot-parameters:

ether=11,0x1000,eth0 ether=5,0x240,eth1

The result is, that both interfaces work, but the NE2000 (5,0x240) uses
eth2...that's OK, but I'm still wondering about this behaviour.

I spent some time googling, but only found some people having such
problems with PCMCIA-cards. They were able to fix this with changing
their PCMCIA-conf., so hmmmm....

If you need to know more of my configuration, please tell me. Right now
I don't know where to look for the error... at this stage, the kernel
doesn't even access the root-fs, so it cannot be in the /etc-files...
right ?

Hints ?

greetz
Thomas

Relevant Pages