From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 24 00:29:59 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21EB5DF3; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from luigi.brtsvcs.net (luigi.brtsvcs.net [IPv6:2607:fc50:1000:1f00::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7FDB1E33; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:29:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from chombo.houseloki.net (unknown [IPv6:2601:7:880:bd0:21c:c0ff:fe7f:96ee]) by luigi.brtsvcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83F852D4FAE; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:29:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2601:7:880:bd0:b40d:eb14:4f81:f42f] (unknown [IPv6:2601:7:880:bd0:b40d:eb14:4f81:f42f]) by chombo.houseloki.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E339137A; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:29:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52E1B40B.9060009@bluerosetech.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:30:03 -0800 From: Darren Pilgrim User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Thompson Subject: Re: Supermicro A1SRi-2758F, no NICs detected References: <52E1A60D.3080002@bluerosetech.com> <52E1AE57.5070503@bluerosetech.com> <54717B7D-9B83-4074-81AC-7F7ED3ACB251@netgate.com> In-Reply-To: <54717B7D-9B83-4074-81AC-7F7ED3ACB251@netgate.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net , freebsd-stable X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:29:59 -0000 On 1/23/2014 4:12 PM, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> On Jan 23, 2014, at 16:05, Darren Pilgrim >> wrote: >> >> I would still like to know if there are plans to backport the >> i354/C2000 SoC gigabit support in igb to 9.x? > > We recompiled it for pfSense (8.3 based), but you're likely better > off with 10.0. I saw that. It was actually a pfSense forum thread that tipped me off about support in 10.0. :)