Re: ofpath vs ofpathname vs grub-ofpathname
Adrian,
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 3:47 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
<glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> In order to collect data for fixing the limitations we have with grub-ofpathname,
> I have done some initial testing on our POWER8 buildd by comparing the output
> of Yaboot's ofpath [1], ofpathname from powerpc-utils [2] and grub-ofpathname [3].
>
> Interestingly, all three return different path names on the POWER machine:
>
> root@redpanda:~# ./powerpc-utils/scripts/ofpathname /dev/sda1
> /vdevice/v-scsi@30000004/disk@8100000000000000
> root@redpanda:~# /srv/glaubitz/grub/grub-ofpathname /dev/sda1
> /vdevice/v-scsi@30000004/disk@8100000000000000:a
> root@redpanda:~# ./yaboot-test/usr/sbin/ofpath /dev/sda1
> /vdevice/v-scsi@30000004/@1:1
> root@redpanda:~#
>
> Could someone test this on a Mac, please? Yaboot and powerpc-utils just need to
> be checked out from git and the scripts can be run directly, GRUB just needs
> to be built with the usual ./bootstrap && ./configure && make.
System: Mac Mini G4
Using master branch from:
$ git clone git@github.com:ibm-power-utilities/powerpc-utils.git
$ git clone git://ozlabs.org/srv/projects/yaboot/yaboot.git
$ git clone git://git.savannah.gnu.org/grub.git
Leads to:
$ sudo scripts/ofpathname /dev/sda1
/pci@f4000000/ata-6@d/scsi@0/sd@0,0
$ ybin/ofpath /dev/sda1
ofpath: /dev/sda: Device not configured
$ ./grub-ofpathname /dev/sda1
/pci@f4000000/ata-6@d/disk@0:a
In case this is needed, here is the current ofpath (with Milan's patch):
$ /usr/sbin/ofpath /dev/sda1
/pci@f4000000/ata-6@d/@0:1
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> > [1] http://git.ozlabs.org/?p=yaboot.git
This does not includes Milan's patch to ofpath.
> > [2] https://github.com/ibm-power-utilities/powerpc-utils
> > [3] http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/grub.git
>
> --
> .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
> `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
> `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
>
Reply to: