From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753533AbYDMVcQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:32:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752302AbYDMVb7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:31:59 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.152]:56115 "EHLO fg-out-1718.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751378AbYDMVb6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:31:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=SDArWp1AFX9R5x5dHCQp98UK05sm8MeCxuWMkwMUktL1EL6WjENPfs8Rv9dohO1SY8BiTKFHEcGlBJCB/gR4xo+DWARbxWbUTGckSwxqc6piVdb3dXUdqZf6yCFqbrtcrfBJwPnw/9+V0YczS4pLiu+OxTWB7h+NpjjbcBiLr6g= From: Alexia Death To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Problem: non-SDHC 2GB SD cards are unreadable Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:32:21 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200804132326.07713.alexiadeath@gmail.com> <20080413214211.3730e977@core> In-Reply-To: <20080413214211.3730e977@core> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804140032.22110.alexiadeath@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 13 April 2008 23:42:11 Alan Cox wrote: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital_card#Compatibility_issues_wit > >h_2_GB_and_larger_cards tells me that this is the result of a hack due to > > the nature of 2GB cards. > > > > Are there any plans to make 2GB SD cards work? I doubt I'm the only one > > with such 2GB SD cards(and a camera) and Id be royally screwed right > > about now if I did not have my photobank and an option to use it as a > > copy over point... > > Mounting it with -o loop ought to work around this if the problem is > purely media block size. That is probably the right answer anyway but the > solution ought to be managed more elegantly for the user. It seems the issue is a bit more complicated. Tried it with -o loop. It did mount but the contents was binary garbage... Strangely different binary garbage at each mount... -- Best, Alexia