[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:15:02 +0200
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 12:31:02AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> 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
Ah, I understand now. GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS implies
GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 since partition 0 is the first partition
and cannot represent whole disk. However, GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0
doesn't imply GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS.
I think it would be clearer if GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 was renamed to
GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_PARTITION_0_IS_NOT_WHOLE_DISK. What do you think?
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.