I had problems with Modem too.  However, I fixed the problem with these
steps.

1. I recompiled the kernel with ppp support built-in and just (basic)
standard options for standard serial drivers. I.e, no MANY-IRQ,
MANY-PORT, AUTO-DETECT whatsoever support.

2. There is a problem with /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifdown-ppp
script.  The ppp pid is stored in the file /var/lock/LCK..Modem
(something like this).  I have to modify the script to kill this pid
process otherwise the ppp connection never got disconnected by using
usernet program and the modem locked-up forever.

3. I have no zip drive myself. However, I have a portable IDE drive
attatch to parallel port, and I am able to hook it up with following
commands:

        insmod parport
        insmod parport_pc
        insmod paride
        insmod epat
        insmod pd
hope it may give you some hints.

Paul

Mike Abney wrote:
> 
> I'm having two problems that may or may not be related.  Both my modem
> and my Zip drive are completely failing to work.  (They both worked
> under RH 5.2 and still work under Win '95.)  When trying to use the
> modem I get no response from minicom, and KPPP tells me that the "modem
> is busy".  When trying 'modprobe ppa', I'm told that the parallel port
> is reporting no SCSI devices and/or that the "device or resource is
> busy".  First things first, I really want the modem to work and then I
> can deal with the Zip drive.  Therefore...
> 
> I've checked everything I can think of.  A 'setserial -g /dev/ttyS0'
> shows that it is configured correctly (IRQ and I/O addresses are the
> same as in Win' 95).  I've also checked /proc/interrupts and the IRQ is
> not listed as being used elsewhere.
> 
> Is this something that can be fixed by getting the new initscripts?
> (I've already updated the kernel packages, but since the initscripts
> update wasn't in that same ftp directory I wasn't sure at first how
> official it was.)  If so, I've got that RPM and will install it
> tonight.  I just wanted to check here first to see if anyone had any
> other ideas.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike

Reply via email to