0

In Debian Wheezy I am getting the following error on loading the ns83820 module.

Anyone have a idea how to fix this?

Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566727] ns83820.c: National Semiconductor DP83820 10/100/1000 driver.
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566836] ioremap: invalid physical address fffffffff4000000
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566840] ------------[ cut here ]------------
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566858] WARNING: at /build/linux-dJLVDt/linux-3.2.46/arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c:83 __ioremap_caller+0xa9/0x372()
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566863] Hardware name: Unknown
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566866] Modules linked in: ns83820(+)
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566874] Pid: 73, comm: modprobe Not tainted 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 Debian 3.2.46-1
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566878] Call Trace:
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566896]  [] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x68/0x79
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566902]  [] ? __ioremap_caller+0xa9/0x372
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566907]  [] ? warn_slowpath_null+0xd/0x10
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566912]  [] ? __ioremap_caller+0xa9/0x372
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566918]  [] ? ioremap_nocache+0xa/0xd
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566927]  [] ? ns83820_init_one+0x12b/0x5d4 [ns83820]
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566935]  [] ? ns83820_init_one+0x12b/0x5d4 [ns83820]
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566944]  [] ? pci_device_probe+0x53/0x9a
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566954]  [] ? driver_probe_device+0x10c/0x10c
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566959]  [] ? driver_probe_device+0x8c/0x10c
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566964]  [] ? __driver_attach+0x40/0x5b
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566970]  [] ? bus_for_each_dev+0x3b/0x5d
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566976]  [] ? driver_attach+0x14/0x17
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566981]  [] ? driver_probe_device+0x10c/0x10c
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566985]  [] ? bus_add_driver+0x86/0x1af
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.566997]  [] ? kset_find_obj_hinted+0x4c/0x8d
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567001]  [] ? 0xf8253fff
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567005]  [] ? 0xf8253fff
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567010]  [] ? driver_register+0x73/0xc6
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567014]  [] ? 0xf8253fff
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567017]  [] ? 0xf8253fff
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567021]  [] ? 0xf8253fff
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567026]  [] ? __pci_register_driver+0x32/0x86
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567030]  [] ? 0xf8253fff
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567033]  [] ? 0xf8253fff
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567039]  [] ? do_one_initcall+0x66/0x10e
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567043]  [] ? 0xf8253fff
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567057]  [] ? sys_init_module+0x14c0/0x1677
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567068]  [] ? syscall_call+0x7/0xb
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567072] ---[ end trace c623892f829e745a ]---
Oct  6 13:15:00 soter kernel: [    1.567118] ns83820: probe of 0000:00:08.0 failed with error -12

Some details:

$ uname --all
Linux bob 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.46-1 i686 GNU/Linux
7
  • Please do not cross post: superuser.com/questions/658000/…
    – slm
    Oct 12, 2013 at 19:35
  • Would someone be so kind as to explain how this is off topic?
    – gam3
    Oct 16, 2013 at 0:13
  • Read the message below, it's pretty self explanatory, you cross posted this Q on multiple SE sites.
    – slm
    Oct 16, 2013 at 0:22
  • Cross posting is not off topic. I was off topic in Superuser and that is why I deleted that post. Also it is my understanding that cross posting is discouraged but not forbidden. So I ask again is this off topic, or have you just decided that you should be the protector of Superuser. As the one time maintainer of the NFS code in Linux I thought I might have some comments of use in this forum, but it seems that I am not wanted.
    – gam3
    Oct 16, 2013 at 17:05
  • I'm by no means a "protector" so please don't insinuate anything beyond, you cross posted your Q and I saw it while trying to search for a solution and found it. The process is to vote for Q's that present like this as on hold until the situation get's worked out. We can now vote to reopen this since the nature of the Q is on topic for this site, and you've deleted the cross post.
    – slm
    Oct 16, 2013 at 17:25

1 Answer 1

0

This is caused buy code in the 686 pae code. It does a check to make sure that the address (in this case 0xfffffffff4000000) is in range for the the number of virtual bits. But the test fails for this address. To solve this problem I compiled a non-pae 686 kernel and the drives then installed.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .