On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 10:11:42PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > My question is whether it makes sense as a general safety check.
>
> Well, if it isn't going to occur with the current firmware
> implementations, I do not see the use. But it will not hurt either.
> Simply, I do not care either w
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:07:37PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
>> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > What do you think of adding this kind of checks? I know it's not a
>> > perfect safegard, but it can save your day in some si
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 07:07:37PM +0100, Marco Gerards wrote:
> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> > What do you think of adding this kind of checks? I know it's not a
> > perfect safegard, but it can save your day in some situations (it helped
> > me during i386/ieee1275 por
Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
> What do you think of adding this kind of checks? I know it's not a
> perfect safegard, but it can save your day in some situations (it helped
> me during i386/ieee1275 port, when link address was 0x10).
If this fixes the i386-ieee1275 port, th
Hi!
What do you think of adding this kind of checks? I know it's not a
perfect safegard, but it can save your day in some situations (it helped
me during i386/ieee1275 port, when link address was 0x10).
--
Robert Millan
I know my rights; I want my phone call!
What use is a phone call… i
