From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iJzjb-0006Ch-KK for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:46:01 +0000 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 14:45:57 +0200 From: "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" Message-ID: <20191014124557.dmiaqmzclli2snnk@pengutronix.de> References: <20191014122546.ey5bjayf7ilkohpj@pengutronix.de> <3e41e4224f8c5c848c4de1c1e439f17583b870d9.camel@klsmartin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3e41e4224f8c5c848c4de1c1e439f17583b870d9.camel@klsmartin.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: erroneous behavior for iMX+GPT To: "Middelschulte, Leif" Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" 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. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox