From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.bemta8.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta8.messagelabs.com [216.82.243.197]) (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 94A261A1DEC for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 23:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [216.82.241.83] by server-5.bemta-8.messagelabs.com id A7/AC-27966-E8704B75; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:43:26 +0000 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrFIsWRWlGSWpSXmKPExsWS8eIhk24f+5Z wg4YJ7BZ7Dh1ldmD06J79jyWAMYo1My8pvyKBNWPenR1MBf9YKmY8e8nWwDiBpYuRk0NI4AWj xNcHCl2MXED2HkaJC6sXMIEk2AT0JK6vOg1miwiYS7TOvwJmCwv4SiyZdxUqHiwx++kiNghbT 2Lx2rVgcRYBVYmXG2aD2bxA9WsaX4HZjAJiEt9PrQGzmQXEJS5NhuiVEBCQWLLnPDOELSrx8v E/VghbUaLn43p2iHodiQW7P7FB2NoSyxa+ZoaYLyhxcuYTlgmMgrOQjJ2FpGUWkpZZSFoWMLK sYtQoTi0qSy3SNTTRSyrKTM8oyU3MzNE1NLDQy00tLk5MT81JTCrWS87P3cQIDOd6BgbGHYyt J1wOMUpyMCmJ8s6cuDFciC8pP6UyI7E4I76oNCe1+BCjDAeHkgSvHNuWcCHBotT01Iq0zBxgZ MGkJTh4lER477ICpXmLCxJzizPTIVKnGHU5Fvy4vZZJiCUvPy9VSpz3H0iRAEhRRmke3AhYlF 9ilJUS5mVkYGAQ4ilILcrNLEGVf8UozsGoJMx7DmQKT2ZeCdymV0BHMAEdoS+9AeSIkkSElFQ Do9PZ++e9LZeXWrn19M53VxaN1YiQLvS+935/s/ylltDMaC2jo/arb69gcJb7vtF+jdYn1qsb M1pXKnlc6N5hXqbQELd7u9yFiMiGifqVsXN6ehaulIsUL3wpVH9RNSp50gKfXbqeectOMxpY7 q54xxXNpBVwv3N5cZbpd7eP3Gf3+gfuNl6rxFKckWioxVxUnAgAlHzKgO0CAAA= X-Env-Sender: ykatayama1@lenovo.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-37.messagelabs.com!1471416206!53994940!1 X-Originating-IP: [104.232.225.2] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 8.84; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 9202 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2016 06:43:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO maesmtp01.lenovo.com) (104.232.225.2) by server-12.tower-37.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted SMTP; 17 Aug 2016 06:43:26 -0000 Received: from APMAILCH03.lenovo.com (unknown [10.128.246.248]) by maesmtp01.lenovo.com with smtp (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) id 6518_2de6_31d60f66_a09f_4794_833b_cd29598d1dff; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:43:18 +0000 Received: from APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com ([fe80::fc60:7d0e:ecc3:f655]) by APMAILCH03.lenovo.com ([fe80::1466:c51d:1312:9271%14]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:43:00 +0800 From: Yosuke Katayama1 To: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Thread-Topic: [edk2]Is this a right place to discuss EDK2's USB IF implementation? Thread-Index: AdH4Uo1Trvru5JRPSIeI0CG2DaX21w== Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:42:48 +0000 Message-ID: <5F5B41F3CAC51543B46516F1A5F982DC24BC5161@APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com> Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.128.115.10] MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Is this a right place to discuss EDK2's USB IF implementation? X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:43:27 -0000 Content-Language: ja-JP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, We have a USB vendor who has a different understanding on USB IF specificat= ion from the EDK2's understanding(implementation). This mismatch was causing a trouble on our products in the past. There is n= o issue with our ongoing products as we applied a workaround to our BIOS co= de but we would like to resolve this mismatch fundamentally for future prod= ucts. Is this mailing-list a good place to discuss this topic? Note: I asked the same question to "laurie0131@users.sourceforge.net" and "questi= ons@tianocore.org" on 2nd Aug and on 10th Aug respectevely but I haven't he= ard any feedback since then. Kind regards,