Intel E810-C drivers
-
@stephenw10 said in Intel E810-C drivers:
We do build it for Plus.
Come on ... you just need to add two lines into the kernel config file and build CE.
-
no idea in this special case .... however Netgate needs the plus edition to pay their staff ....
-
@salexandrov do you understand that this type of behavior reduces the chance of ice_so being included?
-
@jsone your post reduces to “everything I want must be free”, which I understand but I think you will agree, it’s not sustainable.
The “just run <other project>” response (tbc, not by you) basically just makes me want to walk away.
-
I dont think its too much to ask that 5 year old intel network cards be supported in both CE and PRO. I would hope that netgate would consider a reasonable suggestion to support the same underlying hardware in both CE and PRO. That said, I understand why netgate is heading this way with the pfsense project.
-
@jsone said in Intel E810-C drivers:
I dont think its too much to ask that 5 year old intel network cards be supported in both CE and PRO. I would hope that netgate would consider a reasonable suggestion to support the same underlying hardware in both CE and PRO. That said, I understand why netgate is heading this way with the pfsense project.
Well, they think E810 NICs are available for "business only". Not exactly true. And, by the way, PRO comes with paid support, CE - just DIY and rely on forums ... Don't understand what's the deal ...
-
It was originally removed when we trimmed back the number of modules we shipped because the images sizes were getting excessively large. We were shipping modules for all sorts of hardware that no-one was using. It was added back to Plus because we use the ice driver in the 8300.
We should be able to re-asses this for the next point release.
-
Would that also cover the x710?
-
-
Indeed, X710 uses the ixl driver so is unaffected.
-
@stephenw10 i would be grateful if it was added to CE in the next point release, thank you.
-
@jsone get @salexandrov to retract his joke and I'll consider it.
But while you're here, answer me this: Who pays for all of this? The answer is trivial, but I have a feeling you don't care.
-
@jwt without going into the weeds on this, i will say that i paid out of my own pocket for the update to the openbgp status page in 2.0. before that the status would never load. now its code has been carried over and continues to benefit the ffr packages for both CE and PRO. ive even purchased multiple appliances from netgate and pfsense.
i will tell you that seeing someone with a netgate tag represent negate this way is a little alarming.
i wish you wellness
-
@jsone the ice_ddp.ko will be in 2.8.1.
Thank you for your support.
-
@salexandrov I have a working FreeBSD VM I was using to build some programs.
I used pfSense CE 2.7.2 source (as CE 2.8.0 are not available), to build the kernel module for ice_ddp.Here is is : ice_ddp.ko.zip
It should work for pfSense CE 2.7.2 but not 2.8.0.
You probably need to disable ice (non DDP) module.And I tried the same with latest devel-main branch : ice_ddp.ko.zip but I'm not sure if it will be compatible with CE 2.8.0 as RELENG_2_8_0 sources are not published
