On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 06:37:45PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Sascha, > > On 19.02.24 09:31, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > - pentry = xzalloc(sizeof(*pentry)); > > + dpart = xzalloc(sizeof(*dpart)); > > + dpart->boot_indicator = table[i].boot_indicator; > > + memcpy(dpart->chs_begin, table[i].chs_begin, sizeof(table[i].chs_begin)); > > + dpart->type = table[i].type; > > + memcpy(dpart->chs_end, table[i].chs_end, sizeof(table[i].chs_end)); > > + > > + pentry = &dpart->part; > > > > pentry->first_sec = first_sec; > > pentry->size = get_unaligned_le32(&table[i].partition_size); > > pentry->dos_partition_type = table[i].type; > > + pentry->num = i + 1; > > I suspect this breaks my boot script for MBR systems. > Please revert to zero-based numbering. Err, right. This wasn't really done on purpose. I just wanted the numbering of parted consistent to the Linux output and haven't thought about the implication on the numbering barebox uses internally. I've sent patches to revert it back. This means parted now has a different numbering than its Linux pendant, but I think this is still better than having parted in barebox start at 1 while barebox internally uses 0. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
