I suspect you're right. :-)  I had silent data corruption on my amd64 system
when I used it, and given that I don't have any IEEE1284 analyzer, or way to
log the output ("Hey, the printer says this is invalid Postscript!"), I just
punted on it and didn't even file a problem report.  Bad user, bad.

That said, it was a LOT faster and more friendly to my system when I was
using PPBus than using the 'normal' parallel driver.

	ScottE

-----Original Message-----
From: source-changes-owner@NetBSD.org
[mailto:source-changes-owner@NetBSD.org] On Behalf Of Quentin Garnier
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: source-changes@NetBSD.org
Subject: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/acpi


Module Name:	src
Committed By:	cube
Date:		Wed Jan 10 18:55:22 UTC 2007

Modified Files:
	src/sys/dev/acpi: atppc_acpi.c

Log Message:
Fix typoed function name.  I guess not a lot of people use that driver.


To generate a diff of this commit:
cvs rdiff -r1.7 -r1.8 src/sys/dev/acpi/atppc_acpi.c

Please note that diffs are not public domain; they are subject to the
copyright notices on the relevant files.