From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-io0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4001:c06::235]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1avOoL-0006EE-Tr for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 12:43:23 +0000 Received: by mail-io0-x235.google.com with SMTP id d62so44848824iof.2 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2016 05:43:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160427092501.GT7860@pengutronix.de> References: <1461653060-13481-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <20160427092501.GT7860@pengutronix.de> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 09:43:00 -0300 Message-ID: From: Fabio Estevam List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: i.MX: increase barebox partition sizes To: Sascha Hauer Cc: Barebox List On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > Normally the environment is much smaller, so I wouldn't expect issues > here. The alternative to making the environment smaller would be to move > other partitions to the back. This would probably hurt more, especially > since a regular fdisk starts the first partition at offset 1MiB. > > Another approach would be to use a MBR partition for the environment > instead of using the raw device. > >> >> Shouldn't this change be done by a separate patch? > > We can't increase the barebox partition without shrinking the > environment right behind it. Or do you mean that we first shrink Ok, got it. I wasn't aware of this 1MiB requirement, so all is fine then. Thanks _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox