* GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0
@ 2007-07-09 15:05 Robert Millan
2007-07-10 20:26 ` GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Hollis Blanchard
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert Millan @ 2007-07-09 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: grub-devel
What's the point of GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 ? We have code that
checks this flag, but nobody initialises it:
disk/ieee1275/ofdisk.c: if (! grub_ieee1275_test_flag (GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0))
include/grub/ieee1275/ieee1275.h: GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0,
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0
2007-07-09 15:05 GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Robert Millan
@ 2007-07-10 20:26 ` Hollis Blanchard
2007-07-13 22:31 ` GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Robert Millan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Hollis Blanchard @ 2007-07-10 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: The development of GRUB 2
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:05 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> What's the point of GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 ? We have code that
> checks this flag, but nobody initialises it:
>
> disk/ieee1275/ofdisk.c: if (! grub_ieee1275_test_flag (GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0))
> include/grub/ieee1275/ieee1275.h: GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0,
In IEEE1275, partition 0 (as in "disk:0") means "the whole disk".
However, CodeGen-based firmware (that means Genesi) have a bug where
partition 0 is actually disk partition 1. In that case, to access the
whole disk, GRUB must open "disk" instead of "disk:0".
I have no idea how the initialization got lost; it should be initialized
in the same place that the other flags are. Checking cvs history may be
in order.
-Hollis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0
2007-07-10 20:26 ` GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Hollis Blanchard
@ 2007-07-13 22:31 ` Robert Millan
2007-07-22 9:15 ` GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Robert Millan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert Millan @ 2007-07-13 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: The development of GRUB 2
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:26:43PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:05 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > What's the point of GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 ? We have code that
> > checks this flag, but nobody initialises it:
> >
> > disk/ieee1275/ofdisk.c: if (! grub_ieee1275_test_flag (GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0))
> > include/grub/ieee1275/ieee1275.h: GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0,
>
> In IEEE1275, partition 0 (as in "disk:0") means "the whole disk".
> However, CodeGen-based firmware (that means Genesi) have a bug where
> partition 0 is actually disk partition 1. In that case, to access the
> whole disk, GRUB must open "disk" instead of "disk:0".
Yes, but don't we already have GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS for that ?
> I have no idea how the initialization got lost; it should be initialized
> in the same place that the other flags are. Checking cvs history may be
> in order.
It was this commit:
2005-04-30 Hollis Blanchard <hollis@penguinppc.org>
* boot/powerpc/ieee1275/cmain.c: [...]
[...]. Set GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_REAL_MODE and
GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS.
doesn't mention it, but it also added GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0.
Should we merge these flags? They appear to mean the same to me.
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0
2007-07-13 22:31 ` GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Robert Millan
@ 2007-07-22 9:15 ` Robert Millan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert Millan @ 2007-07-22 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: The development of GRUB 2
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 12:31:02AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:26:43PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:05 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > What's the point of GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 ? We have code that
> > > checks this flag, but nobody initialises it:
> > >
> > > disk/ieee1275/ofdisk.c: if (! grub_ieee1275_test_flag (GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0))
> > > include/grub/ieee1275/ieee1275.h: GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0,
> >
> > In IEEE1275, partition 0 (as in "disk:0") means "the whole disk".
> > However, CodeGen-based firmware (that means Genesi) have a bug where
> > partition 0 is actually disk partition 1. In that case, to access the
> > whole disk, GRUB must open "disk" instead of "disk:0".
>
> Yes, but don't we already have GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS for that ?
Ah, I understand now. GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS implies
GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 since partition 0 is the first partition
and cannot represent whole disk. However, GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0
doesn't imply GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS.
I think it would be clearer if GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 was renamed to
GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_PARTITION_0_IS_NOT_WHOLE_DISK. What do you think?
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com. Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-22 9:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-07-09 15:05 GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Robert Millan
2007-07-10 20:26 ` GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Hollis Blanchard
2007-07-13 22:31 ` GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Robert Millan
2007-07-22 9:15 ` GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 Robert Millan
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.