On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 02:13:49PM -0800, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr> writes:
> > [ ... ]
> 
> seeing "15550" (which i'd have guessed was a typo or 16550), i
> searched the 3com web site for both "15550" and "5609" (the alleged
> product number).  Searching for other product numbers e.g. 5690, 5699,
> and 16550 produced hits.
> 
> I'm not convinced the product name you're using here is even close to
> correct...  (i'm also not sure why you used the mask you did...  if
> you got this information from documentation, that should probably be
> made clear somewhere...)

No, actually it's just a quick hack to see if it works. 
For the mask it's cut'n'paste from the previous entry, 0xffff would be more
correct (but will not hurt for the quick check :)
For the product name it's what kent used.

--
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
--