Re: Need clarification on ImageUpdatable field in EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_PROTOCOL.CheckImage()

[Varun Kumar <varun7036@gmail.com>]

Awesome, thanks!

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, 2:56 pm Laszlo Ersek, <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 10/09/18 11:07, Varun Kumar wrote:
> > I need clarification on ImageUpdatable field in
> > EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_PROTOCOL.CheckImage(). ImageUpdatable is of 32
> > bit wide
>
> That seems to be the case, yes. (OUT UINT32 *).
>
> > but ImageUpdatable Definitions for this field is of 64 bit wide.
>
> That's not the case; the macros
> - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_VALID,
> - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_INVALID,
> - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_INVALID_TYPE,
> - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_INVALID_OLD,
> - IMAGE_UPDATABLE_VALID_WITH_VENDOR_CODE
> all have type INT32.
>
> (Using the last one as an example, the integer constant
> 0x0000000000000010 has type INT32.)
>
> I agree that the large number of leading zeroes is confusing. Please
> consider filing a Mantis ticket for the UEFI spec, for cleaning those
> up.
>
> > I hope it's not defined intentionally if so, please clarify me on
> > this. Please find the attached screenshot for reference.
>
> Two comments on the screenshot:
>
> - Currently the edk2-devel list strips attachments (most types, if not
>   all). That's a bug, but it's very hard to fix. Either way, the image
>   you may have attached hasn't reached the list.
>
> - Sending a screenshot (I assume: from the UEFI spec) is not a bad idea
>   (assuming you use a lossless compression format, like PNG). It can be
>   improved further if you also provide textual pointers, such as: spec
>   release (e.g. "2.7"), and page number or section number.
>
> Thanks!
> Laszlo
>