On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 09:38:39PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
>>
>> But if the firmware already did, wouldn't this be a waste of boot time?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it would. Most BIOS perform both health check and security freeze,
> but some don't. For coreboot, it is not a waste of boot time.
>
>
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 07:00:06PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
Very interesting. Do you think any of these features could be useful as a
default option in grub-mkconfig?
At least the --health check and --security-freeze are IMO recommended
for each disk.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 07:00:06PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting. Do you think any of these features could be useful as a
>> default option in grub-mkconfig?
>>
>>
>
> At least the --health check and --security-freeze are IMO recommended
> for each disk. Both is also d
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 03:13:31PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
insmod ata_pthru
(note that module dependencies should make this unnecessary)
This insmod is necessary for now. hdparm.mod does not directly call
ata_pthru.mod, it uses kern/disk.c::grub_disk_
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 03:13:31PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
> insmod ata_pthru
(note that module dependencies should make this unnecessary)
> insmod hdparm
>
> # Make sure disks cannot be locked by an ATA password
> hdparm --quiet --security-freeze (ata4)
> hdparm --quiet --security-freeze
Christian Franke wrote:
...
New patch below. Function grub_ata_pass_through() now moved to new
module ata_pthru.mod.
Committed. Now also includes a SMART status check.
grub.cfg example (assumes ata.mod is used):
...
insmod ata_pthru
insmod hdparm
# Make sure disks cannot be locked by an
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 12:12:32AM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
I would suggest to move grub_ata_pass_through() to a new module (e.g.
ata2.mod, atax.mod, ataex.mod, ...)
How about ata_something.mod? (consistent with ntfs.mod & n
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 12:12:32AM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
I would suggest to move grub_ata_pass_through() to a new module (e.g.
ata2.mod, atax.mod, ataex.mod, ...)
How about ata_something.mod? (consistent with ntfs.mod & n
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 12:12:32AM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> >>I would suggest to move grub_ata_pass_through() to a new module (e.g.
> >>ata2.mod, atax.mod, ataex.mod, ...)
> >>
> >
> >How about ata_something.mod? (consistent with ntfs.mod & ntfs_comp.mod)
>
Robert Millan wrote:
I would suggest to move grub_ata_pass_through() to a new module (e.g.
ata2.mod, atax.mod, ataex.mod, ...)
How about ata_something.mod? (consistent with ntfs.mod & ntfs_comp.mod)
ata_pthru.mod ?
Christian
___
Grub
On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 11:46:39PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> >On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:59:01PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
> >
> >>This patch adds a command which allows to change a few (S)ATA drive
> >>settings. It relies on a new pass-through function in ata.
Robert Millan wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:59:01PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
This patch adds a command which allows to change a few (S)ATA drive
settings. It relies on a new pass-through function in ata.mod.
Is this function going to be used for "normal" use of ata? Note tha
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:59:01PM +0100, Christian Franke wrote:
> This patch adds a command which allows to change a few (S)ATA drive
> settings. It relies on a new pass-through function in ata.mod.
Is this function going to be used for "normal" use of ata? Note that ata.mod
should be as small
13 matches
Mail list logo
