From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=lersek@redhat.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3979F21163DFE for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 02:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE861C0BFBD6; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-120-35.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.35]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 119DC10021B2; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:26:47 +0000 (UTC) To: Varun Kumar References: From: Laszlo Ersek Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org Message-ID: <0d2417df-bc62-e279-97d5-8a84b706407a@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:26:47 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Tue, 09 Oct 2018 09:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Need clarification on ImageUpdatable field in EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_PROTOCOL.CheckImage() X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 09:26:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On 10/09/18 11:07, Varun Kumar wrote: > I need clarification on ImageUpdatable field in > EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_PROTOCOL.CheckImage(). ImageUpdatable is of 32 > bit wide That seems to be the case, yes. (OUT UINT32 *). > but ImageUpdatable Definitions for this field is of 64 bit wide. That's not the case; the macros - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_VALID, - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_INVALID, - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_INVALID_TYPE, - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_INVALID_OLD, - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_VALID_WITH_VENDOR_CODE all have type INT32. (Using the last one as an example, the integer constant 0x0000000000000010 has type INT32.) I agree that the large number of leading zeroes is confusing. Please consider filing a Mantis ticket for the UEFI spec, for cleaning those up. > I hope it's not defined intentionally if so, please clarify me on > this. Please find the attached screenshot for reference. Two comments on the screenshot: - Currently the edk2-devel list strips attachments (most types, if not all). That's a bug, but it's very hard to fix. Either way, the image you may have attached hasn't reached the list. - Sending a screenshot (I assume: from the UEFI spec) is not a bad idea (assuming you use a lossless compression format, like PNG). It can be improved further if you also provide textual pointers, such as: spec release (e.g. "2.7"), and page number or section number. Thanks! Laszlo