From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.251.9]) (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 796FD1A1E3E for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 03:01:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [216.82.251.46] by server-9.bemta-12.messagelabs.com id 48/EC-07418-DE2F5085; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:01:17 +0000 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupkleJIrShJLcpLzFFi42JJl3ulo/v2E2u EwZnnQhZ7Dh1ltpi0m92ByWPxnpdMHt2z/7EEMEWxZuYl5VcksGY0nFnBXPBJqeLooi6mBsYz 0l2MXBxCAi8YJY6vamOBcNYzSvx9cp8RwlnMKDFh2VamLkZODjYBPYnrq06D2SICahIX1+5lB 7GZBcwl3r5+zQhiCws4SnRt38gOUeMkceLibkYI203i/o4jYDaLgKrEv87LbCA2r4CvxKum82 BxIYHpjBKvW8tBbEYBMYnvp9YwQcwXl7g0eRFYvYSAgMSSPeeZIWxRiZeP/7FC2IoSPR/XQ92 jI7Fg9yc2CFtbYtnC18wQuwQlTs58wgKxS0ni88JmlgmMorOQrJiFpH0WkvZZSNoXMLKsYtQo Ti0qSy3SNTTRSyrKTM8oyU3MzNE1NDTSy00tLk5MT81JTCrWS87P3cQIjKJ6BgbGHYzfdrocY pTkYFIS5X30mDVCiC8pP6UyI7E4I76oNCe1+BCjDAeHkgTvgY9AOcGi1PTUirTMHGA8w6QlOH iURHgvgaR5iwsSc4sz0yFSpxgVpcR5r4AkBEASGaV5cG2wFHKJUVZKmJeRgYFBiKcgtSg3swR V/hWjOAejkjDvZ5ApPJl5JXDTXwEtZgJafC6PBWRxSSJCSqqBccXCyS2WdSu+TD/8Lubv5xW7 Hy44czs7XKvs1Cz/n0lveasSNI1VP20LYHqzQuba7xfWG0zY65868Tj1Wgau5whtMpaP+3acY +t2A7Elbu3Heu2nvGN3OenxPj7vyzyVRz4Gt/zTPv+bwqTdyjGpbck7qRCjjPOFAbkKypGhL5 dkLdAIrXuTp8RSnJFoqMVcVJwIAG5aqxYcAwAA X-Env-Sender: ykatayama1@lenovo.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-47.messagelabs.com!1476784873!19906104!1 X-Originating-IP: [103.30.234.44] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 8.84; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 10143 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2016 10:01:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mapsmtp02.lenovo.com) (103.30.234.44) by server-11.tower-47.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted SMTP; 18 Oct 2016 10:01:16 -0000 Received: from APMAILCH02.lenovo.com (unknown [10.128.246.254]) by mapsmtp02.lenovo.com with smtp (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) id 1859_7bf0_bf2acbf8_a6b1_4d17_b6fc_eb8d63700ebf; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:01:07 +0800 Received: from APMailch05.lenovo.com (10.128.248.4) by APMAILCH02.lenovo.com (10.128.246.254) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:01:06 +0800 Received: from APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com ([fe80::fc60:7d0e:ecc3:f655]) by APMAILCH05.lenovo.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 18:00:57 +0800 From: Yosuke Katayama1 To: "Tian, Feng" CC: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Thread-Topic: [EDK2][USB IF]Mismatch between EDK2 and a USB vendor Thread-Index: AdITFZMHVZgoGvsCSa6tGMQRy/m9VwAhhnJAAAzGKxAAA/AQcAVRbqzA Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:00:48 +0000 Message-ID: <5F5B41F3CAC51543B46516F1A5F982DC24BD4601@APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com> References: <5F5B41F3CAC51543B46516F1A5F982DC24BCE1F7@APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com> <7F1BAD85ADEA444D97065A60D2E97EE566E1D722@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.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: Re: [USB IF]Mismatch between EDK2 and a USB vendor 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: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:01:18 -0000 Content-Language: ja-JP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Feng, We haven't get any feedback from USB.org yet but could you provide us with = the patch? We found a new issue probably caused by this mismatch in our current produc= ts and I want to check if the patch could fix the issue or not at least. Thank you for all your support! Kind regards, Yosuke Katayama -----Original Message----- From: Yosuke Katayama1=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:15 PM To: 'Tian, Feng' Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org Subject: RE: [EDK2][USB IF]Mismatch between EDK2 and a USB vendor Hello Feng, Thank you for the reply. Please wait for creating the fix.=20 Currently the USB vendor is contacting USB organization to check if the ven= dor's interpretation of the IF spec is valid or not. I will let you know wh= en the vendor has received the answer from the organization, then you can d= ecide whether to fix or not.=20 What do you think of this plan? PS: We are using XHCI. Kind regards, Yosuke Katayama -----Original Message----- From: Tian, Feng [mailto:feng.tian@intel.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 3:14 PM To: Yosuke Katayama1; edk2-devel@lists.01.org Cc: Tian, Feng Subject: RE: [EDK2][USB IF]Mismatch between EDK2 and a USB vendor Hi, Katayama We never receive such feedback on inconsecutive usb interface number. I agr= ee EDKII usb driver should be able to handle this. I am working on a fix, but I have no such device at hand. Could you help me= verify it when the patch is ready?=20 PS: what host controller are you using? EHCI or XHCI? Thanks Feng -----Original Message----- From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Yosu= ke Katayama1 Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:05 AM To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org Subject: [edk2] [EDK2][USB IF]Mismatch between EDK2 and a USB vendor Hello,=20 This is relating to my previous post "[edk2] Is this a right place to discu= ss EDK2's USB IF implementation?"=20 We found a mismatch between EDK2 source code and our USB vendor's implement= ation. Could you give us your opinions? bInterfaceNumber , 9.6.5 Interface from Universal Serial Bus 3.1 Specificat= ion Rev 1.0 says; -- Number of this interface. Zero-based value identifying the index in the arr= ay 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 independ= ently turned on/off * Solution allows any combination of interfaces without= re-defining the interface number * One general lookup table can tell you w= hat 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 O= EM customers have never raised this issue -- As a result, the vendor's USB IF looks like below. =3D=3D=3D>Configuration Descriptor<=3D=3D=3D ... bNumInterfaces: 0x02 <<<< bConfigurationValue: 0x01 iConfiguration: 0x00 bmAttributes: 0xA0 -> Bus Powered -> Remote Wakeup ... =3D=3D=3D>Interface Descriptor<=3D=3D=3D ... bInterfaceNumber: 0x0C <<<< Interface Number starts fro= m 0x0C instead of 0. [comment from Yosuke] bAlternateSetting: 0x00 bNumEndpoints: 0x01 ... =3D=3D=3D>Interface Descriptor<=3D=3D=3D ... bInterfaceNumber: 0x0D <<<< bAlternateSetting: 0x00 bNumEndpoints: 0x00 ... and it hits the following ON_ERROR in UsbDesc.c. -- } else if (Setting->Desc.InterfaceNumber >=3D NumIf) { DEBUG (( EFI_D_ERROR, "UsbParseConfigDesc: mal-formated interface des= criptor\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 _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel