From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 5 15:07:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19092 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:07:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA18904 for ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 15:05:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0y0a5s-00016h-00; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:48:28 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:48:23 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: Ken Key cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anyone familiar with the Intel EtherExpress PRO/100+? In-Reply-To: <199802052257.OAA09621@sodium.network-alchemy.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe hackers" On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Ken Key wrote: > Hi Folks, > > it's getting rather difficult to find Intel EtherExpress > PRO/100B's - they are being replaced by the PRO/100+. It appears > that the PRO/100+ uses a new Intel Ether chip - the 82558. Has anyone > investigated using the fxp driver with the PRO/100+ or what it would take > to integrate support for the PRO/100+ > > Thanks for any info, > Ken Key > -- > Ken Key (key@network-alchemy.com) > > The PRO/100+ and PRO/100B are the same chipset. Intel reduced the chipcount on the PRO/100+ by combining two chips into one, but all functionality is the same. In fact, you should always try to use PRO/100+'s instead of the PRO/100B, because they are probably more reliable (lower power consumption for one). Tom