[U-Boot] [PATCH v1] DOS_PBR block type is also valid dos block type.

[Sonic Zhang]

Hi Stephen,

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 08:57 PM, Sonic Zhang wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2013 03:56 AM, sonic.adi at gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zhang at analog.com>
>>>>
>>>> - Should return 0 for both DOS_MBR and DOS_PBR block types in test_part_dos().
>>>
>>> What problem does this solve?
>>>
>>> I don't believe this change is correct. The purpose of test_part_dos()
>>> is to determine whether a block device contains an MS-DOS partition table.
>>>
>>> Such a partition table is present in an MBR, but not a PBR. A PBR
>>> contains a *FAT file-system, and does not include a partition table.
>>
>> The SD card formated by windows 7 into one FAT partition can't be
>> initialized correct in u-boot function init_part() after you reuses
>> function test_block_type() in function test_part_dos(). So, files on
>> that partition can't be displayed when run command "fatls mmc 0".
>>
>> The only difference in your change is to mark dos partition with flag
>> DOS_PBR invalid.
>
> I did test a raw FAT filesystem on an SD card without any partition
> table, and it worked fine. Admittedly I created the layout/filesystem
> with Linux rather than Windows, but I don't think the layout would be
> any difference. What if you "fatls mmc 0:0" rather than "fatls mmc 0";
> does that make any difference?

"fatls mmc 0:0" makes no difference.

Regards,

Sonic