[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cmd640 bugfix (was Re: SEUL: Proposition for a simplified kernel recompiling proced)

To: Paul Anderson <hacker@geeky1.ebtech.net>
Subject: Re: cmd640 bugfix (was Re: SEUL: Proposition for a simplified kernel recompiling proced)
From: George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:03:08 -0800 (PST)
cc: Cyberdyn <cyberdyn@seul.org>, forgeltd@usa.net, seul-project@seul.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980203232443.10812Q-100000@geeky1.ebtech.net>
Sender: owner-seul-project@seul.org
To-Get-Off-This-List: mail majordomo@seul.org, body unsubscribe seul-project

On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Paul Anderson wrote:

> BTW, an important point I just thought I should mention: Build in support
> for the CMD640 bugfix.  I've got a buggy CMD640 IDE chipset, Linux won't
> even boot without the CMD640m bugfix.  TTYL!

I agree.  I have one of these as well.  They are rather common on the
cheaper IDE controllers, particularly as OEM's try to keep their costs
down in a competetive market.

George Bonser 
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen sig)
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.

References:
- cmd640 bugfix (was Re: SEUL: Proposition for a simplified kernel recompiling proced)
  - From: Paul Anderson <hacker@geeky1.ebtech.net>

Prev by Date: Re: SEUL: Proposition for a simplified kernel recompiling proced
Next by Date: SEUL: FW: Re: COAS ??
Prev by thread: cmd640 bugfix (was Re: SEUL: Proposition for a simplified kernel recompiling proced)
Next by thread: RE: cmd640 bugfix (was Re: SEUL: Proposition for a simplified ke
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread