From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tresko1@gmail.com>
Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom;
 client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c; helo=mail-io0-x22c.google.com;
 envelope-from=tresko1@gmail.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org 
Received: from mail-io0-x22c.google.com (mail-io0-x22c.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22c])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34288210F9286
 for <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id d185-v6so10501609ioe.0
 for <edk2-devel@lists.01.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=yAJQ9xJFy6e6edldCz9v6QYj9sDxWW6UY8GhDNY5AVg=;
 b=e/ld9oxZHqGMRAPC12CJs1tiVap0Av07Nd0BvJObFmr0IXezs4xpulFgWR9/ujSRiO
 SVK8tz9Xugz4exTPTDirYqkKk+1o4rGo8OabH50ff0VbaoSz3mRZi0JROgmEpnT+mckx
 IAfF1+N03msQEiM6OwFuerQvwL+eUW/kxH6WnBYef2K6E4BrecYhMOhrVhu6e2eHv7zP
 nXi8OWXykwPm+l7LR8oJytRoKbV2OeFXVBgyZBLUbFy8W/niOy7M6YJr8SfUYI3qvEWh
 oH005pYwC3J8PAER3LN9MKXW6QcE/Fe2YYiVsQq+uImHynWBiWHJqtWZSrWJcoRKmB/u
 S3QQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=yAJQ9xJFy6e6edldCz9v6QYj9sDxWW6UY8GhDNY5AVg=;
 b=IiM8V259Jc0DgjeUyN4yo64pSSGNfW8W10DykAc3FdcqYX091bpcmbYz8oYmNKlbMu
 OEkp4ZUG6S9jP/V8TPN0OUbbX7F+LPSjbEcbB9DWYgrc/EzxvsQW6sWZLBSOJ84hQsvB
 M2OGqusNOD3MmTF7k0rspQSVG7F3hdkaUTCRdGcrlxvRAT0HiN31jRZvk/UKs+o4Wrnb
 NoQ6RAoAqLMlTL3Yz5/RoGptCaTrDXXln3piV6qQMtJUWMLyJa+lEVLoOitOqo6x6vw4
 lQNyMJCpPY3lK6zLya/z4RnECUeF1NsVQdql4oKX9RWVoJJQ5P909JiPpjCTJrqNdEdY
 M3rA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3cifLWpf2aiFoSdTlcMWMdo7J114Pn7lvdYFOGIPdfJQER31Or
 seeBZxb1e3r0ett1WCqRxXGVnvLiax30BhqMXHs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIKXfL8c8dtruoerOYVWOUC+3oYVCiissHDrqkb81xzLtTNS5ol7G5yUkQUptlnGJKnsqwzTAiKRUN4DmseJpQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7114:: with SMTP id
 q20-v6mr1170009iog.258.1529064271047; 
 Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a02:b1d3:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 05:04:10
 -0700 (PDT)
From: TVKR <tresko1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:04:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD+hitfPGmBHV_ZVT01BZp_XOQwukg3NHC0vX6RzD4K05A-Rsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.26
Subject: FMP Capsule vs PMCI PLDM FW Update binaries
X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: EDK II Development  <edk2-devel.lists.01.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.01.org/mailman/options/edk2-devel>,
 <mailto:edk2-devel-request@lists.01.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.01.org/pipermail/edk2-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:edk2-devel@lists.01.org>
List-Help: <mailto:edk2-devel-request@lists.01.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel>,
 <mailto:edk2-devel-request@lists.01.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:04:32 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi,

The DMTF group is coming up with a new way to update FW on PCI devices via
BMC - DSP0267. The method expects the FW binary to carry a pre-defined
header that makes it easier for BMC to perform the necessary actions.
Currently some of the OEM/ODMs are already releasing FW payloads that can
be flashed via FMP. Additionally under certain circumstances they may also
release capsules targeting FMP for firmware updates. Now, if they need to
support this new FW update method via BMC will they end up releasing
separate binaries to do the same update - one that is compliant with PLDM
spec and the other compliant with FMP capsule? Is there a way to avoid
this? Or are the OEM/ODM expected to release bulky FW packages that contain
multiple binaries to update the same type of FW.

Thanks