From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:28:05 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1] DOS_PBR block type is also valid dos block
 type.
In-Reply-To: <1362995768-30954-1-git-send-email-sonic.adi@gmail.com>
References: <1362995768-30954-1-git-send-email-sonic.adi@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <513E1425.2030604@wwwdotorg.org>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 03/11/2013 03:56 AM, sonic.adi at gmail.com wrote:
> From: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zhang@analog.com>
> 
> - Should return 0 for both DOS_MBR and DOS_PBR block types in test_part_dos().

What problem does this solve?

I don't believe this change is correct. The purpose of test_part_dos()
is to determine whether a block device contains an MS-DOS partition table.

Such a partition table is present in an MBR, but not a PBR. A PBR
contains a *FAT file-system, and does not include a partition table.