In message <199802161943.MAA06298@shell.aros.net>, "Michael K. Sanders" writes:
>In message <6c9q1o$g8p$1@colwyn.owl.de>, Matthias Scheler writes:
>>
>>the i386 GENERIC configuration file says that the fxp driver supports
>>the "Intel EtherExpress Pro 10+/100B". However all german dealers I
>>checked only have a "Intel EtherExpress Pro 100+". Is this really a
>>different board or only another name for the same thing? On Intel's
>>WWW pages they are listed seperately.
>
>AFAIK, the Pro/100+ is a newer model that replaces the 100B.  Last
>time I asked this question, no one had tried one of the newer boards
>with the fxp driver.  Has anyone done so since?  It might Just Work.

Apologies for following up to myself, but a quick search of the FreeBSD
mailing list archives indicates that the 100+ should work just fine
with the fxp driver.  Here's one such message:

Date:      Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:48:23 -0800 (PST)
From:      Tom <tom@sdf.com>
To:        Ken Key <key@network-alchemy.com>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Anyone familiar with the Intel EtherExpress PRO/100+?


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