On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:39 PM Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 1/29/21 10:05 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:28 PM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 08:27:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 06:50:39PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > ... > > > >>> The case I got into has been achieved by very standard procedures. Hence > >>> it's > >>> kinda default behaviour in some cases and should be handled accordingly. > >>> The > >>> patch proposed here is to cover this in the U-Boot, because real fix has > >>> been > >>> rejected by maintainer (probably I failed to explain that). But this is > >>> still > >>> bug in U-Boot for such cases. And again, Linux has an offset option. I'm > >>> fine > >>> if this can be added to the fat* commands in the U-Boot. > >> > >> Sorry, what is the real fix that was rejected again? Thanks! > > > > I probably misspelled the state of the affairs. The direction (*) of > > how to fix this had been rejected. > > > > *) the idea is to fix fat support code to consider nested MBRs. > > > > Hello Andy, > > could you, please, provide an image created by Windows but not > recognized by U-Boot. According to the thread the first 1 MiB should be > enough to reproduce the problem. Maybe place it on gist.github.io. > > This should give us the test case for correcting disk/part_dos.c.
I already shared this, it's still there [1]. [1]: https://gist.github.com/andy-shev/469aef8dfcd8f5605cb8992cf5958769 -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
