[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Robert Millan
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:31:02 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

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 
> >   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  <address@hidden>

        * boot/powerpc/ieee1275/cmain.c: [...]
        [...]. Set GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_REAL_MODE and

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 address@hidden  Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters.  Writing to it will get you added to my black list.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]