On Tuesday 13 November 2007 18:22, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Andy Powell writes: > >On Tuesday 13 November 2007 15:39, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > >> Jean-Michel Bouffard writes: > >> >What I mean is that the SD card must be ext3 only in the case you want > >> >to boot from it. I guess that uboot doesn't recognize the FAT > >> > partition. But maybe ext2 could also boot? and as you said it would be > >> > preferable for the SD. > >> > >> ext2 vs. ext3 wouldn't affect booting -- it's the same format, ext3 is > >> simply a backward-compatible extension. > > > >Sorry this isn't the case. Having tried with an ext2 formatted card and > >failing with a kernel panic saying that it had tried ext3, cramfs . > >Formatting the card ext3 works. It's simply that I forgot to build ext2 > >support into the kernel ie not as a module, which I've now done and will > > test shortly. > > Huh -- I'd thought ext3 depended on ext2. Didn't realize it had its > own drivers in the kernel... but fixing the kernel config seems like > a *really* good idea!
Well, I could be doing something hugely wrong - but I'm obviously only doing it when I format it ext2 ;) Andy / ScaredyCat
