From: Yosuke Katayama1 <ykatayama1@lenovo.com>
To: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
Subject: [USB IF]Mismatch between EDK2 and a USB vendor
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 00:04:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5F5B41F3CAC51543B46516F1A5F982DC24BCE1F7@APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com> (raw)
Hello,
This is relating to my previous post "[edk2] Is this a right place to discuss EDK2's USB IF implementation?"
We found a mismatch between EDK2 source code and our USB vendor's implementation. Could you give us your opinions?
bInterfaceNumber , 9.6.5 Interface from Universal Serial Bus 3.1 Specification Rev 1.0 says;
--
Number of this interface. Zero-based value identifying the index in the array of concurrent interfaces supported by this configuration.
--
Regarding this.
EDK2 source code (UsbDesc.c) says:
--
//
// If a configuration has several interfaces, these interfaces are
// numbered from zero to n...
//
--
The USB vendor says:
--
* Numbering is not necessarily consecutive * Each interface can be independently turned on/off * Solution allows any combination of interfaces without re-defining the interface number * One general lookup table can tell you what interface is assigned to what interface number.
* For these reasons, the interface definition is like this on our products.
* The interface definition has remained the same from the previous products, and other products before that.
* Current interface numbering is supported by all Microsoft OS * Other PC OEM customers have never raised this issue
--
As a result, the vendor's USB IF looks like below.
===>Configuration Descriptor<===
...
bNumInterfaces: 0x02 <<<<
bConfigurationValue: 0x01
iConfiguration: 0x00
bmAttributes: 0xA0 -> Bus Powered
-> Remote Wakeup
...
===>Interface Descriptor<===
...
bInterfaceNumber: 0x0C <<<< Interface Number starts from 0x0C instead of 0. [comment from Yosuke]
bAlternateSetting: 0x00
bNumEndpoints: 0x01
...
===>Interface Descriptor<===
...
bInterfaceNumber: 0x0D <<<<
bAlternateSetting: 0x00
bNumEndpoints: 0x00
...
and it hits the following ON_ERROR in UsbDesc.c.
--
} else if (Setting->Desc.InterfaceNumber >= NumIf) {
DEBUG (( EFI_D_ERROR, "UsbParseConfigDesc: mal-formated interface descriptor\n"));
UsbFreeInterfaceDesc (Setting);
goto ON_ERROR;
}
--
What do you think the vendor's implementation?
Also, have you ever had such a USB IF mismatch between EDK2 and USB vendors before? If so, how are you handling such cases in general?
Kind regards,
Yosuke
next reply other threads:[~2016-09-21 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-21 0:04 Yosuke Katayama1 [this message]
2016-09-21 6:13 ` [USB IF]Mismatch between EDK2 and a USB vendor Tian, Feng
2016-09-21 8:14 ` Yosuke Katayama1
2016-09-21 8:34 ` Tian, Feng
2016-10-18 10:00 ` Yosuke Katayama1
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5F5B41F3CAC51543B46516F1A5F982DC24BCE1F7@APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com \
--to=devel@edk2.groups.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox