Hello,
On 12/18/2014 03:56 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 18 December 2014 at 07:40, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marc...@samsung.com> wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 03:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marc...@samsung.com>
wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marc...@samsung.com>
wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
the we have two cases:
Case 1:
Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2:
The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marc...@samsung.com>
Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <le...@lebon.org.ua>
Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com>
Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriya...@gmail.com>
Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de>
---
fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Tested-by: Simon Glass <s...@chomium.org>
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644
--- a/fs/fat/fat.c
+++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
@@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t
pos,
void *buffer,
int ret = -1;
int firsttime;
__u32 root_cluster = 0;
+ __u32 read_blk;
int rootdir_size = 0;
- int j;
+ int j, k;
What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might
save needing a comment for them.
+ int do_read;
+ __u8 *dir_ptr;
Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
__u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer,
so
why not to keep the whole code style?
OK, sounds good.
Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?
No, but I think that this is not any fat issue.
Can you explain what you mean here? What other software could be causing this?
Regards,
Simon
The fat code is quite unreadable, but it is simple.
Passing the "/syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb" as the fatload
argument is just treat as a "/syslinux" directory which doesn't exists.
So the file can't be read, right?
Best regards,
--
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marc...@samsung.com
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
