[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:31:02 +0200
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
> > (GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0))
> > 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.
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.