fat32 w/o parition table? (a.k.a VBR instead of MBR)
After some user complaints about not being able to fatls micro sd cards which were formatted by Windows XP, I felt compelled to make the following change (to u-boot 1.1.6, which I know is ancient, but looking at the git tree, the latest doesn't handle it either near as I can tell.
Just curious if anyone has any thoughts.
In the latest code, it seems like checking the partition table first is dangerous as a VBR might looks like it has a partition table (but it would be bogus)
Some documents suggest checking the first 3 bytes of the block for the branch instructions. The idea being that an MBR with a valid partition table won't have the branch. voodoo, I know...
-brad
fat.c 2008-05-08 12:54:56.000000000 -0400 renamed from fat.c.orig 2008-05-08 16:18:40.000000000 -0400 +4 -1
@@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ #define DOS_PART_TBL_OFFSET 0x1be #define DOS_PART_MAGIC_OFFSET 0x1fe #define DOS_FS_TYPE_OFFSET 0x36 +#define DOS_FS_FAT32_TYPE_OFFSET 0x52 int disk_read (__u32 startblock, __u32 getsize, __u8 * bufptr) {
@@ -85,7 +86,9 @@ return -1; } - if(!strncmp((char *)&buffer[DOS_FS_TYPE_OFFSET],"FAT",3)) { + if(!strncmp((char *)&buffer[DOS_FS_TYPE_OFFSET],"FAT",3) || + !strncmp((char *)&buffer[DOS_FS_FAT32_TYPE_OFFSET],"FAT32",5)) + { /* ok, we assume we are on a PBR only */ cur_part = 1; part_offset=0;
This lets me fatls/fatload from the fat32 file systems created by windows.
I've done a little FAT hacking, and I think this falls under the category of "disk with VBR instead of MBR".
-brad
Hello,
Quoted 9 lines · in message <1998.1210278835@mini> you wrote:
After some user complaints about not being able to fatls micro sd cards which were formatted by Windows XP, I felt compelled to make the following change (to u-boot 1.1.6, which I know is ancient, but looking at the git tree, the latest doesn't handle it either near as I can tell.
Just curious if anyone has any thoughts.
Quoted 7 lines
In the latest code, it seems like checking the partition table first is dangerous as a VBR might looks like it has a partition table (but it would be bogus)
Some documents suggest checking the first 3 bytes of the block for the branch instructions. The idea being that an MBR with a valid partition table won't have the branch. voodoo, I know...
Strangely enough, this message seems to have received no feedback at all.
So what do we do about this?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 5 lines
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de Leave bigotry in your quarters; there's no room for it on the bridge. -- Kirk, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2