On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > > Really? VIA's own stuff doesn't touch 0x95? Hmm. Well is there ever a
> > > case where touching 0x95 solved ANYTHING?
> > >
> > > What do you think? Should I change the patch to not touch 0x95?
> >
> > If this is the code I recall, we beat this to death ages ago. Some people
> > can't run without the fix, period, because user code will crash the
> > system. I have two like that, and while I could run the kernel as an i686
> > kernel, I can't protect the user code that way.
>
> you have two kt266 boxes that crash without the fix to 0x95,
> or are you talking about kt133/kx/etc and their 0x55 fix?
You are so correct, I remembered the byte incorrectly, 0x55 is the one
needed. It was NOT the code I (almost) recall.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:00:37 EST