On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 09:24:24AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 09:02 Fri 10 Jan , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 09:59:33PM +0530, Santosh Sivaraj wrote: > > > * Santosh Sivaraj <santosh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote (on 2014-01-09 21:36:41 +0530): > > > > > > adding list, missed it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we instead allocate the partitions dynamically? This limitation to > > > > > > eight partitions we currently have is not nice, but making it > > > > > > configurable is not a proper fix. > > > > > > > > > > agreed but a limit will be good too > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sascha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We could keep a configurable maximum, with a high default, but do the allocation > > > > dynamically. I will try to send in a patch, we can discuss how it needs to be > > > > done over it. > > > > It shouldn't be configurable in Kconfig. That's not a question a user > > should have to answer when configuring barebox. I high default would be > > fine with me though since memory usually is an infinite resource in > > barebox. > > I'm more thiking of a broken EFI GPT that have 1000s of partition > > do we really need to handle that Indeed it seems we can assume that something is wrong when a device has 1000s of partitions. So where do we set the border? 64? Sascha -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
