From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:36:08 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] FAT: check for partition 0 not 1 for whole-disk fs In-Reply-To: <506F6CE4.8080802@ti.com> References: <1349479060-3211-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <506F6CE4.8080802@ti.com> Message-ID: <506F6EE8.7060308@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 10/05/2012 05:27 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On 10/05/12 16:17, Stephen Warren wrote: >> From: Stephen Warren > >> The recent switch to use get_device_and_partition() from >> do_fat_ls() broke the ability to access a FAT filesystem >> directly on a whole device; FAT only works within a partition on >> a device. > >> This change makes e.g. "fatls mmc 0:0" work; explicitly >> requesting partition ID 0 is something that >> get_device_and_partition() fully supports. However, >> fat_register_device() expects partition ID 1 to be used in the >> full-disk case; partition ID 1 was previously implicitly >> specified when the user didn't actually specify a partition ID. >> Update fat_register_device() to expect the correct ID. > >> This change does imply that if a user explicitly executes "fatls >> mmc 0:1" then this will fail, and may be a change in behaviour. > > So wait, you can't list device 0, bus 1 after this patch? That's partition 1 not bus 1. In the context of having a raw FAT filesystem on a device with no partition table, the partition specification "0:1" doesn't work before or after this patch; I believe (if it worked at all ever before) it was broken by the previous get_device_and_partition() rework. If you do have a partition table, then "0:1" works just fine with/without this patch. >> Note that this still prevents "fatls mmc 0:auto" from working. >> The next patch will fix that. > >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren --- Tom, this >> series is really a bug-fix and should go in before the 9-long >> series I posted earlier today. I'll need to rebase that other >> series on top of this and repost, once any comments are >> addressed. > > Should this also go in the release? I imagine so; that's why I rebased it below the previous series I sent which I assume isn't going into this release.