Is there a version of the fxp driver that works with intels latest boards
without giving the "unsupported PHY" message? All the boards we get lately
have this problem, and it seems that the 3.4 stuff is been virtually wiped
from the ftp site.
Dennis
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECT
Has the issue with the new rev intel parts been resolved yet?
Dennis
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Has the issue with the new rev intel parts been resolved yet?
Dennis
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Dennis wrote:
>
> Is there a version of the fxp driver that works with intels latest boards
> without giving the "unsupported PHY" message? All the boards we get lately
> have this problem, and it seems that the 3.4 stuff is been virtually wiped
> from the ftp site.
Yeah, right:
ftp> pwd
257 "
Well its gone from cdrom.com which is where i usually get it
ftp://ftp.freesoftware.com/pub/FreeBSD/releases/i386/3.4-STABLE/
is just a packages directory. cdrom.com redirects you to
freesoftware.com...just FYI.
Dennis
At 11:49 AM 3/18/00 -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>>
>> Is
Dennis wrote:
> Well its gone from cdrom.com which is where i usually get it
cdrom.com has not been the correct location for a *long* time (like 4+
years!). The proper hostname is ftp.freebsd.org - that hasn't changed
and the paths there are still perfectly valid.
Cheers,
-Peter
To Unsu
I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
driver been updated recently?
DB
At 11:49 AM 3/18/00 -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>>
>> Is there a version of the fxp driver that works with intels latest boards
>> without giving the "unsupported PHY" message? A
>I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
>driver been updated recently?
Not to fix the problem that you are reporting. The solution might be as
simple as adding another PHY identifier to the list of supported ones. I need
to find some time to sit down with one of
It's also the case that there's never been anything in the
release/3.x-STABLE or release/4.x-STABLE directories except a package
link since those directories are there only for sysinstall, they're
not for humans to go to and browse. Humans looking for actual source
code for these branches should
Dennis wrote:
>
> I hope your happy,
I'll be happier when you stop FUD'ing two separate FreeBSD development
lists with your bleating about this driver.
> but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
> driver been updated recently?
Define "updated" and "recently". On which code branch?
At 08:45 PM 3/20/00 -0800, David Greenman wrote:
>>I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
>>driver been updated recently?
>
> Not to fix the problem that you are reporting. The solution might be as
>simple as adding another PHY identifier to the list of supported o
Dennis wrote:
>
> Ok. Thanks. Mr. Peters thinks that I should spend a half day searching for,
> installing and testing the "latest driver" (of course latest depends on
> where you happen to download it from), when it seems to me that asking the
> developers if a particuar issue has been corrected
Dennis wrote:
>
> At 08:45 PM 3/20/00 -0800, David Greenman wrote:
> >>I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
> >>driver been updated recently?
> >
> > Not to fix the problem that you are reporting. The solution might be as
> >simple as adding another PHY identifi
At 12:51 PM 3/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>>
>> At 08:45 PM 3/20/00 -0800, David Greenman wrote:
>> >>I hope your happy, but do you know the answer to my question? Has the
>> >>driver been updated recently?
>> >
>> > Not to fix the problem that you are reporting. The solution might b
Dennis wrote:
>
> At 12:51 PM 3/21/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >Dennis wrote:
> >>
> >> Shoot me for using an available resource.
> >
> >Shoot you for wasting a resource that could better spend their time
> >developing FreeBSD instead of answering questions for people to lazy
> >or stupid to look for
Running a late 3.2-stable, im getting
fxp0: warning: unsupported PHY, type = 0, addr = 0
the card has a GD82559 Intel part on it
Is there an updated version of the driver that supports this?
Thanks,
Dennis
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hacke
At 01:38 PM 12/19/2000, David Greenman wrote:
> >> Your stupidity is also is emphasized by the fact that no major
> manufacturer
> >> has supported drivers for freebsd. Intel wont even help by providing
> docs.
> >> Bravo. What a WIN for the freebsd community. You've done a tremendous job
> >> m
> >I think he's refering to the 82559 manual. It is available from Intel to
> >developers, but only with an NDA. For various reasons, I can't sign an NDA
> >for that information without putting myself in legal jeopardy. That has always
> >been true, but I was able to obtain the [now older] 825
>> I guess they changed their
>> policy on the part. I've tested the linux driver with the new part on the
>> supermicro board and it works, so the driver is reasonably up to date.
>
>The source-available Intel driver does actually look pretty good. I
>don't know why David has failed to track
>Primarily for two reasons: 1) I didn't know that Intel had released Linux
> driver source, and 2) I don't have any boards that don't work correctly.
I don't either, anymore, sorry. 8(
>I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
> useful in it. Historically the
>
> 2) I don't have any boards that don't work correctly.
>
I have several. If you send me your surface-mail address, I can ship one to
you.
Kees Jan
You are only young once,
but you can stay immature all your life.
To Unsubscribe: s
>
> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally sucked and
> > was chalk-full of magic numbers being anded and ored.
>
>That's "chock full", and you're confusing the Becker driver (bad) with
>the In
>> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
>> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally sucked and
>> > was chalk-full of magic numbers being anded and ored.
>>
>>That's "chock full", and you're confusing the Becker driver (bad) with
>>the
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Greenman writes:
> "drivers for every major OS"? They have drivers for Windows, Window/NT,
>and Linux. Of those Linux is the closest to FreeBSD, but that's like saying
that a penguin is similar to a human because they are both mammals.
Pinguins are birds..
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Greenman writes:
>
>> "drivers for every major OS"? They have drivers for Windows, Window/NT,
>>and Linux. Of those Linux is the closest to FreeBSD, but that's like saying
>that a penguin is similar to a human because they are both mammals.
>
>Pinguins are
David Greenman wrote:
>
> >supporting it if someone ported it over to freebsd? they have drivers for
> >just about every other major OS except BSD. it would be nice if the driver
> >was updated BEFORE cards and MBs that dont work started showing up on the
> >loading dock. Every time I get a shipm
>David Greenman wrote:
>>
>> >supporting it if someone ported it over to freebsd? they have drivers for
>> >just about every other major OS except BSD. it would be nice if the driver
>> >was updated BEFORE cards and MBs that dont work started showing up on the
>> >loading dock. Every time I get a
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
write:
>
>>
>> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
>> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally sucked and
>> > was chalk-full of magic numbers being anded and ored.
>>
>>That's "chock full", and you
On Wednesday, 24 January 2001 at 17:08:16 -0500, Dennis wrote:
>
>>
>>>I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
>>> useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally sucked and
>>> was chalk-full of magic numbers being anded and ored.
>>
>> That's "ch
>
> I've come in in the middle of this discussion, so maybe there's
> something I don't know, but on the same hardware and running FreeBSD,
> I had no problems. Why should we want to replace the driver with
> something which doesn't work well?
There's been a hint of 'vendor supported'
T
On Wednesday, 24 January 2001 at 21:07:45 -0800, Matt Jacob wrote:
>>
>> I've come in in the middle of this discussion, so maybe there's
>> something I don't know, but on the same hardware and running FreeBSD,
>> I had no problems. Why should we want to replace the driver with
>> something which
> On Wednesday, 24 January 2001 at 21:07:45 -0800, Matt Jacob wrote:
> >>
> >> I've come in in the middle of this discussion, so maybe there's
> >> something I don't know, but on the same hardware and running FreeBSD,
> >> I had no problems. Why should we want to replace the driver with
> >> so
At 08:52 PM 01/24/2001, David Greenman wrote:
> >David Greenman wrote:
> >>
> >> >supporting it if someone ported it over to freebsd? they have drivers for
> >> >just about every other major OS except BSD. it would be nice if the
> driver
> >> >was updated BEFORE cards and MBs that dont work star
>>I don't know what list you are looking at, but the download list that
>> I was
>>looking at did not include SCO, Unixware or any other Unix variant except
>>Linux.
>
>This is the list.
>
>NDIS2, NDIS3, NDIS4 and NDIS5 drivers
> Novell Netware* Client 3.11, 3.12
At 10:58 PM 01/24/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>In article
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>you write:
> >
> >>
> >> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
> >> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pro/100+ driver has totally
> sucked and
> >> > was chalk-full of magic n
> If they have a published, freely distributable driver for linux. why would
> you have to sign an NDA to port it to FreeBSD?
You don't. But reverse engineering isn't always complete.
I should know- having gone through hell for the Gigabit NIC for *BSD... mostly
reverse engineered from the Lin
At 01:24 PM 01/25/2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > If they have a published, freely distributable driver for linux. why would
> > you have to sign an NDA to port it to FreeBSD?
>
>You don't. But reverse engineering isn't always complete.
there is a difference between "reverse engineering" and por
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Dennis wrote:
> At 01:24 PM 01/25/2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> > > If they have a published, freely distributable driver for linux. why would
> > > you have to sign an NDA to port it to FreeBSD?
> >
> >You don't. But reverse engineering isn't always complete.
>
>
> there
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 10:58 PM 01/24/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> >In article
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >you write:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and see if it has anything
> > >> > useful in it. Historically the Linux Pr
At 12:48 PM 01/25/2001, David Greenman wrote:
> >>I don't know what list you are looking at, but the download list that
> >> I was
> >>looking at did not include SCO, Unixware or any other Unix variant except
> >>Linux.
> >
> >This is the list.
> >
> >NDIS2, NDIS3, NDIS4 and NDIS5 drivers
> >
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:00:47PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> The case with the intel driver is the "ASSumption" that
> its been done correctly and that the procedures for using the functions
> available are correct.
Bahwhahahahah. Right. Yeah, right.
--
Jonathan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [
David Greenman wrote:
>
> >>I don't know what list you are looking at, but the download list that
> >> I was
> >>looking at did not include SCO, Unixware or any other Unix variant except
> >>Linux.
> >
> >This is the list.
> >
> >NDIS2, NDIS3, NDIS4 and NDIS5 drivers
> >
On Thursday, 25 January 2001 at 12:54:17 -0600, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 01:12:42PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
>> At 10:58 PM 01/24/2001, Jonathan Lemon wrote:
>>> In article
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> you write:
>
>>I'll look into the Linux driver, however, and s
At 01:25 AM 10/21/99 +, you wrote:
>On 20 Oct 1999 17:42:58 -0400, in sentex.lists.freebsd.hackers you wrote:
>
>>
>>Running a late 3.2-stable, im getting
>>
>>fxp0: warning: unsupported PHY, type = 0, addr = 0
>>
>>the card has a GD82559 Intel part on it
>>
>>
>>Is there an updated versi
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
> Performance isn't even the main thing. As I said earlier, it's plain
> bloody unreliable. Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they
> think something is wrong with the card. They were surprised when I
> reported that it works without any problems
> > Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they think something is
> > wrong with the card.
> Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100B cards in FreeBSD
These cards work well in our many 3.x and 4.x systems.
But I just built up a Redhat 6.2 box with one, and all seemed to be
working fine, but
Mike Wade writes:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Performance isn't even the main thing. As I said earlier, it's plain
> > bloody unreliable. Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they
> > think something is wrong with the card. They were surprised when I
> > reported that it
At 08:51 AM 01/26/2001, Mike Wade wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg Lehey wrote:
>
> > Performance isn't even the main thing. As I said earlier, it's plain
> > bloody unreliable. Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they
> > think something is wrong with the card. They were surprised whe
At 09:47 AM 01/26/2001, Jim Sander wrote:
> > > Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they think something is
> > > wrong with the card.
>
> > Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100B cards in FreeBSD
>
>These cards work well in our many 3.x and 4.x systems.
>
>But I just built up a Redhat 6.2
ng
> > nicely with the FreeBSD developers... I've always had the best
> > reliability, performance, and lower CPU usage with the Intel EtherExpress
> > Pro 10/100B cards in FreeBSD (and Solaris x86 for that matter). Are there
> > better cards out there that I should be loo
On Friday, 26 January 2001 at 9:47:38 -0500, Jim Sander wrote:
>>> Linux people avoid the EtherExpress because they think something is
>>> wrong with the card.
>
>> Intel EtherExpress Pro 10/100B cards in FreeBSD
>
>These cards work well in our many 3.x and 4.x systems.
>
>But I just buil
51 matches
Mail list logo