Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 12:18:25 -0800 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: cmcurtin@research.megasoft.com Cc: Javier A Garcia Mantecon <mantecon@mail.holiday-la.com.mx>, "'questions@freebsd.org'" <questions@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Intel EtherExpress Pro + Message-ID: <199611012018.MAA21070@root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Nov 1996 07:54:56 EST." <199611011254.HAA24537@goffette.research.megasoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>>> "DG" == David Greenman <dg@root.com> writes: > >Matt> Hmm. I have two such boards on a 2.1.5R box here. > >DG> If we're talking about the Pro/10+ card, then I'm sorry to say >DG> that this isn't supported. It will require some additional code in >DG> the 'fxp' driver to select the proper mode for the PHY. If we're >DG> talking about the Pro/10, then that card isn't yet supported, but >DG> might be in the future via a new ethernet driver. > >Very interesting. I've got the EtherExpress Pro 10/100 board on a 10mb >network. (The other isn't on an active LAN.) I haven't had *any* >problems with it all. I'm doing NFS across the link, pretty big file >transfers, etc., and haven't noticed any performance problems, and the >machine is rock-solid. > >Kinda makes me wonder how well *supported* hardware will work! :-) Actually, what you have is the Pro/100B, and that *is* supported. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611012018.MAA21070>