*BSD News Article 53540


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!uwm.edu!gemsw3s1.med.ge.com!news.ge.com!luss.is.ge.com!not-for-mail
From: jrs@tampa2.is.ge.com (Jim Smithson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: 2.0.5 on Intel EtherExpress
Date: 25 Oct 1995 17:39:37 -0400
Organization: Just me
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <46maqp$7gb@tampa2.is.ge.com>
References: <SCOTTE.95Oct18074604@odie.center.uscs.com> <YkXajVq00YUsA3P1Ip@andrew.cmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tampa2.is.ge.com


I had a problem initially but managed to RTFM and figure out what I did 
wrong(not mapping the 32K RAM correctly).
It was indeed an Intel Etherexpress card and it does work.
And I was using 2.0.5 from the CD.
But I've heard from at least one person about having problems getting 2 EE16s 
to work in the same box(I've not tried that).

>We never got FreeBSD to handle our Intel Etherexpress cards.  In the end
>we switched the routing unit to BSDI BSD/OS 2.0.1, and it picked up the
>card as it was configured, and everything now works fine.  This leads me
>to suspect that either the etherexpress driver in FreeBSD is buggy or
>dated.  We went through the normal procedures of pulling other cards,
>clearing out the probes that occured on any similar settings, etc, and
>eventually gave up.
>This was the case under both a 386/40 motherboard we originally routed
>with, and the newer 486 dx2/50 we used.  There was some suggestion that
>users should watch for the Intel Etherexpress Pro vs the old intel
>etherexpress.  You might check which you have..
>