[1323] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Network Drivers as Module
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Gortmaker)
Sat Nov 4 01:22:39 1995
From: Paul Gortmaker <gpg109@rsphy1.anu.edu.au>
To: root@achaz.saclay.cea.fr (Administrateur)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 10:58:11 +1100 (EST)
Cc: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.91.951103175704.4928A-100000@achaz.saclay.cea.fr> from "Administrateur" at Nov 3, 95 06:45:53 pm
From root@achaz.saclay.cea.fr (Administrateur):
> > >From "NIIBE Yutaka" Oct 25, 95 01:52:47 pm
> >
> > > Currently (as of 1.3.35), most network drivers cannot handle two (or
> > > more) cards simulteneously as module. That is, we don't use module
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You missed this part, i.e. one module servicing 2 cards.
> I happened to run against this problem last night. I put 2 smc cards in
> the same box (one smc ultra, one etherez - they use 8390 and smc-ultra
> modules). Although I didn't do very extensive testing I think I was
> successful using a different approach. I ran modprobe twice, and changed
> the module name the second time as follows:
>
> modprobe smc-ultra io=0x220
> modprobe smc-ultra -o etherez io=0x240
>
> (or maybe it was insmod the second time ?).
> Both cards were successfully recognized as eth0 and eth1 respectively.
> The 8390 module was loaded once, and the smc-ultra module was loaded once
> under "smc-ultra" and once under "etherez". Both seemed to work properly
> (but again I didn't do extensive testing).
Double-loading of the same module has always worked. But when you do
this, you have two identical copies of the same code resident in
memory. Yuck. Wouldn't you rather do "insmod smc-ultra.o io=0x220,0x240"
instead, and only have one copy of the module loaded?
Paul.
