From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Mar 10 06:24:30 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA22652
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 06:24:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA22644
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 06:24:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA17192; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 06:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199703101424.GAA17192@root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: bag@sinbin.demos.su (Alex G. Bulushev)
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Q about 100Mb ether cards 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:08:38 +0300."
             <199703101308.QAA29274@sinbin.demos.su> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 06:24:45 -0800
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>we have:
>1. SMC with DEC21140-AC
>2. Intel EtherExpress Pro/100
>
>Q1: What about supporting 21140-AC in 2.2-...  if_de.c
>Q2: What about full duplex for 1. and 2. cards
>Q3: What is the best choice (1. or 2., u recomendations about functionality
>    not a price)

   I want to support full duplex in the fxp (Pro/100B) driver, but I haven't
been able to get it to work. The Pro/100B is well supported; it's what I'm
using in wcarchive and I haven't had any problems. It consumes about half
the CPU time that the de driver does and has about the same level of
performance (actually slightly better than the DEC chip).

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project