On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 12:31:02AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:26:43PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 17:05 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > What's the point of GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 ? We have code that > > > checks this flag, but nobody initialises it: > > > > > > disk/ieee1275/ofdisk.c: if (! grub_ieee1275_test_flag > > > (GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0)) > > > include/grub/ieee1275/ieee1275.h: GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0, > > > > In IEEE1275, partition 0 (as in "disk:0") means "the whole disk". > > However, CodeGen-based firmware (that means Genesi) have a bug where > > partition 0 is actually disk partition 1. In that case, to access the > > whole disk, GRUB must open "disk" instead of "disk:0". > > Yes, but don't we already have GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS for that > ?
Ah, I understand now. GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS implies GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 since partition 0 is the first partition and cannot represent whole disk. However, GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 doesn't imply GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_0_BASED_PARTITIONS. I think it would be clearer if GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_NO_PARTITION_0 was renamed to GRUB_IEEE1275_FLAG_PARTITION_0_IS_NOT_WHOLE_DISK. What do you think? -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
