From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:39:52 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] FAT: check for partition 0 not 1 for whole-disk fs In-Reply-To: <506F6EE8.7060308@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1349479060-3211-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <506F6CE4.8080802@ti.com> <506F6EE8.7060308@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <506F6FC8.3010300@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/05/12 16:36, Stephen Warren wrote: > 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. Er yes, thinko there. > 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. OK, so the behavior change here, potentially involves 2 partitions without a partition table? What is the case where fatls mmc 0:1 would fail now? - -- Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQb2/IAAoJENk4IS6UOR1WKbEQALH+HYDHhJeA0EYf8iypop65 2FIekgWaT2lrlQNEowEVGHp7kenHPVgQ8EjbE3TzymWS3QLdD7V9gCJqOXa5ozqQ Nw/sFTcw8j/u83yy7mby0scwxkc3ce0PNly1JH4+L1axKuPUdcXWa52ITy4W1XmZ 348xamJQktrWOUaaUJRMaQP7qCWUNiBZniCTKUIhJhZITEch/JHoF7QkY4PM082X pZB3wDjQJ8CdnsdutzeegiHLwLRm4bWjfy159uvTQePoSx0NJdSsJpU/Zxf+0t6i CCf8rvYz1vKiH2u7D2cWuB61Cg/VwCfhN+wEGL4FSvKSh1zUsKa9fJtHtpw/ueB8 /iAi8dKA1cGzr5Ym0aUrz9UL2ZZ6IO4HTrNW5xGRK8TsbgL+kcgSzF8C9V5T2WF9 J++Ol5yGIjgqHPf/H7pulQ0uJ5NU70JbUB5AYLc5FWW+rULJP8rECQpSC74F3fo0 4HfoOrry/IwCBRSHE1crWIyvP+DmnDEHKX7XEhh8P3nqagwhF9LlSQwcEhATjrBp wEeqZD8A7hViqjuz8aG5J7qVxUPOB1VfzwTzNM6zKMgHbizahmbokcYLFHpORoQ8 YRNjdxgksWAtVSizJlfxOa4D7/GV4pLXUJhqfUYIk8afkbt48YuOUbtwApkLSNLN QM3oQOs6y1RK8qy+wBHq =bUng -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----