From: "Middelschulte, Leif" <Leif.Middelschulte@klsmartin.com>
To: "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" <barebox@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: erroneous behavior for iMX+GPT
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:02:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0005110270ab4d43a4d43b791560852b96ee9313.camel@klsmartin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191014124557.dmiaqmzclli2snnk@pengutronix.de>
Am Montag, den 14.10.2019, 14:45 +0200 schrieb s.hauer@pengutronix.de:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:30:27PM +0000, Middelschulte, Leif wrote:
> > Hi Sascha,
> >
> > Am Montag, den 14.10.2019, 14:25 +0200 schrieb Sascha Hauer:
> > > Hi Leif,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 02:15:39PM +0000, Middelschulte, Leif wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > setting up GPT on an iMX6, I noticed a small bug subject to
> > > > CONFIG_PARTITION_DISK_EFI_GPT_NO_FORCE that leads to unparsed GPTs.
> > > >
> > > > Background: The iMX supports the mmc user partition as bootmedia
> > > > source too.
> > > >
> > > > Problem: The (additional) filetype check[0] fails, if the given buffer
> > > > contains multiple, subsequent file(type)s. The buffer might contain
> > > > the beginning of a disk that contains i.e. a Barebox image *and* a
> > > > partition table. The function file_detect_type returns a single (first
> > > > recognized) type[1]. In my case, it returns the Barebox image type.
> > >
> > > Looks like the file_detect_type() there should be replaced with
> > > file_detect_partition_table().
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There is a comment about this additional check noting it will be
> > > > mandatory as it will be "[..] added to the EFI Spec. per Intel after
> > > > v1.02.". Anybody can elaborate on that?
> > > > That feedback could help to understand why file_detect_partition_table
> > > > is insufficient in this case.
> > >
> > > What makes you think that file_detect_partition_table() is insufficient?
> > Nothing makes *me* think it's insufficient. Yet the author explicitly
> > added this *additional* check and did *not* use the suggested
> > alternative function.
>
> Perhaps because file_detect_partition_table() didn't exist as the efi
> partition parser was added to barebox. Also I would think that
> Jean-Christophe (the original author) didn't encounter these
> ambiguities. It's probably very i.MX specific that a GPT is where the
> barebox header is.
Fair enough. I've created a pull request[0] on GitHub that contains the suggested fix.
[0] https://github.com/saschahauer/barebox/pull/6
>
> Sascha
>
Leif
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-14 13:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-07 14:15 Middelschulte, Leif
2019-10-14 12:25 ` Sascha Hauer
2019-10-14 12:30 ` Middelschulte, Leif
2019-10-14 12:45 ` s.hauer
2019-10-14 13:02 ` Middelschulte, Leif [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0005110270ab4d43a4d43b791560852b96ee9313.camel@klsmartin.com \
--to=leif.middelschulte@klsmartin.com \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox