From owner-freebsd-current Thu May 7 16:26:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA29801 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 16:26:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from implode.root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA29703 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 16:25:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from root@implode.root.com) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA03609; Thu, 7 May 1998 16:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805072324.QAA03609@implode.root.com> To: "Dan Ts'o" cc: benedict@echonyc.com (Snob Art Genre), freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel Etherexpress PRO/100+ PCI In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 May 1998 17:31:42 EDT." <199805072131.RAA16674@dna.rockefeller.edu> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 16:24:25 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >> As I understand it, the PRO/100+ is just a PRO/100B, but fabricated >> differently -- they figured out how to do it with one less chip. But >> the interface is the same. > > An Intel support engineer told me that, although very similar, the >Pro/100+ and Pro/100B are not identical at the software/driver level and >that minor changes would probably be necessary to fully support the Pro/100+. >He said that (at the time), since the Pro/100B was still on the market that >if I was concerned, I should get the Pro/100B instead to avoid problems. I think the Intel support engineer should read the chip documentation. :-) No changes of any kind are needed and the Pro/100+ has been fully tested by me under FreeBSD 2.2.6. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message