From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] Recent changes to EsrtFmp causing ASSERTs To: Michael D Kinney ,devel@edk2.groups.io From: scott.wiginton@hpe.com X-Originating-Location: Texas, US (15.203.233.78) X-Originating-Platform: Windows Chrome 77 User-Agent: GROUPS.IO Web Poster MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 06:12:11 -0700 References: In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <25159.1571663531909616677@groups.io> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="3kEXmgqHP5ErqWBTEbRL" --3kEXmgqHP5ErqWBTEbRL Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael, Wouldn't the current implementation ASSERT if there are different plug-in = cards by the same vendor using the same GUID in their FMP?=C2=A0 They are m= anaging different hardware and have no knowledge of the existence of the ot= her FMP instance.=C2=A0 Each FMP is only aware of the specific device on wh= ose handle they are installed.=C2=A0 If they use FW image descriptors below= version 2 (or they cannot determine a unique HW instance), this would alwa= ys be 0.=C2=A0 Why would we want to ASSERT in this case?=C2=A0 What error c= ondition is being caught? Thanks, SWig --3kEXmgqHP5ErqWBTEbRL Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Michael,

Wouldn't the current implementation ASSERT if there are= different plug-in cards by the same vendor using the same GUID in their FM= P?  They are managing different hardware and have no knowledge of the = existence of the other FMP instance.  Each FMP is only aware of the sp= ecific device on whose handle they are installed.  If they use FW imag= e descriptors below version 2 (or they cannot determine a unique HW instanc= e), this would always be 0.  Why would we want to ASSERT in this case?=   What error condition is being caught?

Thanks,
SWig --3kEXmgqHP5ErqWBTEbRL--