From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.251.6]) (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 85A521A1E2A for ; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 04:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [216.82.251.40] by server-6.bemta-12.messagelabs.com id A5/E7-21107-FBFA8085; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:51:27 +0000 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrCIsWRWlGSWpSXmKPExsWS8eIhk+7+9Rw RBqfmK1nsOXSU2WLSbnYHJo/Fe14yeXTP/scSwBTFmpmXlF+RwJpx8u10loLfahVPfy9gaWCc Id/FyMUhJPCCUWLnkmcsEM4eRolNC9+ydTFycrAJ6ElcX3WaCcQWEVCTuLh2LzuIzSxgLvH29 WtGEFtYwFPif+cyVogaL4lVnx5B2XoSE7Z9BOtlEVCVWLH/CVicV8BXYs67i2BxRgExie+n1j BBzBSXuDR5EdheCQEBiSV7zjND2KISLx//Y4WwFSV6Pq6HukFHYsHuT2wQtrbEsoWvmSHmC0q cnPmEZQKj0CwkY2chaZmFpGUWkpYFjCyrGDWKU4vKUot0jYz1kooy0zNKchMzc3QNDY30clOL ixPTU3MSk4r1kvNzNzECQ7+egYFxB+Pq6V6HGCU5mJREeSV8OCKE+JLyUyozEosz4otKc1KLD zHKcHAoSfB2rAPKCRalpqdWpGXmAKMQJi3BwaMkwmsHkuYtLkjMLc5Mh0idYlSUEuedAZIQAE lklObBtcEi/xKjrJQwLyMDA4MQT0FqUW5mCar8K0ZxDkYlYV5nkCk8mXklcNNfAS1mAlpckwa 2uCQRISXVwLiVl4XlzJzHT1peuK9SOvvjZOS5/vdrfk6WNqxQq5D5OjNIe2bFXsZ0JQ9Zs3me +uu/Hsy6f2aeT57ypoI+Ro3fvCc7hBze1USfcj3Uw6/9k6EqWN3QvFpg2cdOXW7xCzI/lizgW vFGL+ph/fTZRm/3CV40Wtv/YCv7g7lLZgvc4vq5QHr3MzMlluKMREMt5qLiRADUxvw89wIAAA == X-Env-Sender: ykatayama1@lenovo.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-168.messagelabs.com!1476964286!40606652!1 X-Originating-IP: [104.232.225.2] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 8.84; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 90263 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2016 11:51:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO maesmtp01.lenovo.com) (104.232.225.2) by server-5.tower-168.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted SMTP; 20 Oct 2016 11:51:27 -0000 Received: from APMAILCH04.lenovo.com (unknown [10.128.246.251]) by maesmtp01.lenovo.com with smtp (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA) id 7918_0176_aff0ea2d_ce3f_4f1b_80d3_8cca03f2237b; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:51:19 +0000 Received: from APMAILMBX03.lenovo.com ([fe80::fc60:7d0e:ecc3:f655]) by APMAILCH04.lenovo.com ([fe80::5c04:7232:e376:1df7%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:49:36 +0800 From: Yosuke Katayama1 To: "Tian, Feng" CC: "edk2-devel@lists.01.org" Thread-Topic: [RESEND][EDK2][USB IF]Mismatch between EDK2 and a USB vendor Thread-Index: AdIqyATqMWx+ME2CT/erFJo0nrASQQ== Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:49:35 +0000 Message-ID: <5F5B41F3CAC51543B46516F1A5F982DC24BD5B69@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: Re: [RESEND][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: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:51:28 -0000 Content-Language: ja-JP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Feng, This is just a reminder. Thank you for all your support! Kind regards, Yosuke Katayama -----Original Message----- From: edk2-devel [mailto:edk2-devel-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Yosu= ke Katayama1 Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 7:01 PM To: Tian, Feng Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [edk2] [EDK2][USB IF]Mismatch between EDK2 and a USB vendor 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 _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel