Hi Stephen, On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Stephen Warren <swar...@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 <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> >> wrote: >>> On 03/11/2013 03:56 AM, sonic....@gmail.com wrote: >>>> From: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zh...@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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
