He'd have to do a lot more than just returning the correct boot2 version if that was the aim.He changed it to make it undetectable.
He'd have to do a lot more than just returning the correct boot2 version if that was the aim.He changed it to make it undetectable.
He'd have to do a lot more than just returning the correct boot2 version if that was the aim.He changed it to make it undetectable.
Using the boot2 version to detect if Sneek is running sounds stupid. Why not use di ioctl 0x24 (get game count)? Hmm, ok that's only for +DI, but do you care about non +DI?
bool SenseSneek (bool isfsinit)
{
bool ret = true;
char path[ISFS_MAXPATH] ATTRIBUTE_ALIGN(32);
strcpy (path, "/SNEEK/kernel.bin");
if (isfsinit) ISFS_Initialize ();
s32 fd = ISFS_Open(path, ISFS_OPEN_READ);
if (fd < 0)
ret = false;
else
ISFS_Close (fd);
if (isfsinit) ISFS_Deinitialize ();
return ret;
}
It made it easy to detect when in homebrew. That seems like a good reason to keep it.crediar told some people there's no specific reason he changed the bootmii version back to 4.
Hmm...does this mean that to get DML running in neek2o, you need to install the DML Mios to the real nand?If you run BC from sneek nand, or BC from real nand, it shouldn't make a difference.
As BC is unpatched, it will get DML Mios from real nand.
Once it's running, it's not using the nand anymore. So, it should work from uneek2o as well. (not only from sneek2o)
The major problem there was creating the diconfig.bin, as the sneek di wasn't having sd access.