From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fPmCU-0003XQ-S8 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 09:54:55 +0000 Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id v135-v6so24223009lfa.9 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2018 02:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:54:41 +0300 From: Antony Pavlov Message-Id: <20180604125441.539e9f31bc7efd63068c5796@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: barebox large disk problem To: Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org Hi! I'm trying to use ST2000DM006-2DM164 SATA 2000 GB hard disk with barebox. This disk has 3907029168 sectors. Alas barebox uses 32-bit signed integer to store disk sector count (int num_blocks from struct block_device, see include/block.h for details) and hereby the ST2000DM006 disk is too large for barebox. I'm planning to increase block_device.num_block size from 32bit to 64bit. But changing struct block_device may have some unobvious drawbacks and I can't test all block_device usage situations (e.g. EFI). Any suggestions? -- = Best regards, =A0 Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox