> OK, then my question comes again (until I will get a 
> reasonable answer): 
> the
> driver is present (it's even loaded, as you say), the card 
> was properly recognized, all the network settings were 
> provided... Why it still refuse s to work? This was the 
> meaning of my original question, and it remains...

Probably because the driver thinks it can support the card but it actually can't due to some minor difference in the chip that causes it grief.  I would inspect the driver code to see what might be prompting the error you see when you try and make it work (or find the latest tg3 driver in the wild and try that).

I've also seen the reverse: the driver will support the card but won't load because it thinks it can't (common with Intel cards a while back).  Fooling the driver into loading and working *was* easier - just munge the appropriate tables.  Now some drivers use hard-coded tables and you're stuffed other than a rebuild of the driver. 
 
Martin.
-- 
  Martin Bly    |   RAL Tier1 Systems Team
  T: +44|0 1235 446981 F: +44|0 1235 446626 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
> Behalf Of Lucian Stroe
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:58 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]; Miles O'Neal
> Cc: Lucian Stroe
> Subject: Re: network card and display problems
> 
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 22:33:47 -0500, Miles O'Neal 
> <[log in to unmask]> wro
> te:
> 
> >Lucian Stroe said...
> >
> >|I send you the output of the lsmod. I see a "tg3" there, 
> but what is 
> >|th
> e
> >|meaning of the "0" on its right?
> >
> >Look at the heading for taht column.
> >It says "Used by".  It tells you how
> >many things are using that driver.
> >So it's loaded, but the kernel isn't
> >aware of any devices using it.
> 
> OK, then my question comes again (until I will get a 
> reasonable answer): 
> the
> driver is present (it's even loaded, as you say), the card 
> was properly recognized, all the network settings were 
> provided... Why it still refuse s to work? This was the 
> meaning of my original question, and it remains...
> 
> Lucian.
>