Comment 20 for bug 626907

> We should however ensure that the c/h/s data can be interpreted in a way that matches the LBA number

agreed - note that tools generally seem to do it right, even if the numbers come out strangely when the partitions are listed.

@Loic - is that partitioning supposed to be for OMAP? For that platform, we really mustn't 4MB align the FAT partiton because X-loader expects it to start at sector 63. Other boards presumably don't have this problem though (I hope!)

In Loïc's example above, the CHS is right with respect to the sector numbers, assuming 63x255 geometry.

> I think the only thing we really care about is that any LBA numbers larger than 8GB are at the magic C/H/S 1023/255/63 position,

agreed - again, my experience suggests that partitioners such as sfdisk DTRT here.