* 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.