OMAP4 Panda - MMC access broken

OMAP4 Panda - MMC access broken

[Anand Gadiyar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 400 bytes --]

Hi all,

I've just started playing with barebox on OMAP4. I see that with "Release
v2011.11.0", my Panda could access the SD card contents, but with the
current release it can no longer do so.

Git bisect shows commit 82db23d3f4c1de25bbd4b222a3bd9e81d00414f8 (Use
generic block layer to access the drives and do partition parsing) is when
it stopped working.

Any pointers?

Thanks in advance,
Anand

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 454 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: OMAP4 Panda - MMC access broken

[Anand Gadiyar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1455 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've just started playing with barebox on OMAP4. I see that with "Release
> v2011.11.0", my Panda could access the SD card contents, but with the
> current release it can no longer do so.
>
> Git bisect shows commit 82db23d3f4c1de25bbd4b222a3bd9e81d00414f8 (Use
> generic block layer to access the drives and do partition parsing) is when
> it stopped working.
>
> Any pointers?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Anand
>
>
Found the problem. I was using a 4GB SD card with just a single FAT32
partition. The pentry.size is reported as 7744449 which fails the
check_offset_value() call.
I think this is the same issue Sanjeev reported in February.

Below patch seems to fix the issue for now. But I'm not sure what's the
correct way to fix this.

Index: barebox/common/partitions.c
===================================================================
--- barebox.orig/common/partitions.c
+++ barebox/common/partitions.c
@@ -129,8 +129,6 @@ static void __maybe_unused try_dos_parti
                /* do we have to ignore this partition due to limitations?
*/
                if (check_offset_value(pentry.first_sec) != 0)
                        continue;
-               if (check_offset_value(pentry.size) != 0)
-                       continue;

                if (pentry.first_sec != 0) {
                        pd->parts[pd->used_entries].first_sec =
pentry.first_sec;

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1845 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: OMAP4 Panda - MMC access broken

[Sascha Hauer]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:07:16PM +0530, Anand Gadiyar wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've just started playing with barebox on OMAP4. I see that with "Release
> > v2011.11.0", my Panda could access the SD card contents, but with the
> > current release it can no longer do so.
> >
> > Git bisect shows commit 82db23d3f4c1de25bbd4b222a3bd9e81d00414f8 (Use
> > generic block layer to access the drives and do partition parsing) is when
> > it stopped working.
> >
> > Any pointers?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Anand
> >
> >
> Found the problem. I was using a 4GB SD card with just a single FAT32
> partition. The pentry.size is reported as 7744449 which fails the
> check_offset_value() call.
> I think this is the same issue Sanjeev reported in February.
> 
> Below patch seems to fix the issue for now. But I'm not sure what's the
> correct way to fix this.

The correct way would be to make all this stuff 64bit types. I am
working for this for quite some time and have a series for an older
barebox doing this. I would have to rebase it.

Sascha

> 
> Index: barebox/common/partitions.c
> ===================================================================
> --- barebox.orig/common/partitions.c
> +++ barebox/common/partitions.c
> @@ -129,8 +129,6 @@ static void __maybe_unused try_dos_parti
>                 /* do we have to ignore this partition due to limitations?
> */
>                 if (check_offset_value(pentry.first_sec) != 0)
>                         continue;
> -               if (check_offset_value(pentry.size) != 0)
> -                       continue;
> 
>                 if (pentry.first_sec != 0) {
>                         pd->parts[pd->used_entries].first_sec =
> pentry.first_sec;

> _______________________________________________
> barebox mailing list
> barebox@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: OMAP4 Panda - MMC access broken

[Anand Gadiyar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1330 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:07:16PM +0530, Anand Gadiyar wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've just started playing with barebox on OMAP4. I see that with
> "Release
> > > v2011.11.0", my Panda could access the SD card contents, but with the
> > > current release it can no longer do so.
> > >
> > > Git bisect shows commit 82db23d3f4c1de25bbd4b222a3bd9e81d00414f8 (Use
> > > generic block layer to access the drives and do partition parsing) is
> when
> > > it stopped working.
> > >
> > > Any pointers?
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Anand
> > >
> > >
> > Found the problem. I was using a 4GB SD card with just a single FAT32
> > partition. The pentry.size is reported as 7744449 which fails the
> > check_offset_value() call.
> > I think this is the same issue Sanjeev reported in February.
> >
> > Below patch seems to fix the issue for now. But I'm not sure what's the
> > correct way to fix this.
>
> The correct way would be to make all this stuff 64bit types. I am
> working for this for quite some time and have a series for an older
> barebox doing this. I would have to rebase it.
>

Okay. Will be happy to test when you send it out.

Thanks,
Anand

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1900 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox