From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f; helo=mail-io1-xd2f.google.com; envelope-from=varun7036@gmail.com; receiver=edk2-devel@lists.01.org Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (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 C9F7221A07A92 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 02:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id p4-v6so683224iom.3 for ; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 02:50:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4Dgb6x2d94lRh4BfkWKs42cKhRX132G6485+c0uwzAI=; b=DZypYBghZG4Z3vGWwKbCwyiQjpAqeezz0LRAFe2BKVBwLzVljLO4Q69dEres+idX0x YAkzv4O5GFKXAc8CZe3aeHWfC3Wx6m8VRHkz06ih2p9E7R6ZCy/WiWrwrsgF6maBv0+c d0PeUBtH3Dkaa9z8/TCrz92KiMOA8/DMHPtKnBnumjrkld3WeG3Yg+0Nnj+lCDFeDOOX U3C5Afs/V2CShsOOHmJeNRV02SwBEhbsCtfmPhJe805y9lad+Do/yyzNFi8GWS4MxDuw awukbciGKnzoyXKelcd0Gzm5TzmX1qkkzgqF13wrbqr3ttvHLllIKcP4UZxu2zWM8zCk ffnQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4Dgb6x2d94lRh4BfkWKs42cKhRX132G6485+c0uwzAI=; b=hREu9bAjnLQuVhbjimJymgKJ2hmu8dy53L3YHys5T28stKgb0TsSvFjssGBdfXTK+n A2VRbu0LaYJ1jk9+MQsIZG2emGDK1Xbfqi5uRXhe7147b7B9HEpxovjQZp1tyHtKgO0b bpiY21ppLsknvNZ3svYKt2euKaUJuMoZCowM8icdkR3A1gYe5NxWYtiXh5gtKu/lrZY7 t+zA7lljXJTu90+EOvfGCjURO6pfXMp5ZG0xbHkDSzpSmgMjopVgDZyL/TiMK9NqF1Fg Mm1vsOxAWeS0zEpS9NchXA3+arWKIRJoIwomtv7PoJyHXKQ1GYxBvY8N1bfhW4+ms3I0 yEJg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojTGMs7d7+Bo+v2+gF2EBy5qVwk25LcR/PX1yEIiw58X2oOpk1J iBsKzCtzLf1Dhy/fmcTrWoj2PhRnHPPuo9sKvj4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62fgfOJjmCHXcdXbV/mJ1Khc7CGhBUUMbU14ubOIbLOkFALvbQduD3a0jFXBcutabWTt4zwTQ4XkSrBw3ACjmQ= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b682:: with SMTP id g124-v6mr14662905iof.185.1539078648734; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 02:50:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <0d2417df-bc62-e279-97d5-8a84b706407a@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <0d2417df-bc62-e279-97d5-8a84b706407a@redhat.com> From: Varun Kumar Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:20:36 +0530 Message-ID: To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: Need clarification on ImageUpdatable field in EFI_FIRMWARE_MANAGEMENT_PROTOCOL.CheckImage() X-BeenThere: edk2-devel@lists.01.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: EDK II Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 09:50:50 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Awesome, thanks! On Tue, 9 Oct 2018, 2:56 pm Laszlo Ersek, 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 >