From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ironport.klsmartin.com ([212.211.191.11]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iJzUu-0004I8-01 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:30:49 +0000 From: "Middelschulte, Leif" Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:30:27 +0000 Message-ID: <3e41e4224f8c5c848c4de1c1e439f17583b870d9.camel@klsmartin.com> References: <20191014122546.ey5bjayf7ilkohpj@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <20191014122546.ey5bjayf7ilkohpj@pengutronix.de> Content-Language: de-DE Content-ID: <9C3837B7905DCB4592C8FE8C7C52CD3D@klsmartin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: "Middelschulte, Leif" 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: "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" 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. That's why I asked. I'm not familiar with the spec. Maybe it is mandates such a treatment? > > Sascha > Leif _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox