That’s right, the only (current) request was index 0 – that is why it didn’t show up. It was a refactoring error.

It was picked up when we ported some of the changes back into our “closed source” version of the driver and the unit tests failed.

Thanks for pushing this.

From: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
Sent: 17 September 2019 16:28
To: Andy Hayes <andy.hayes@displaylink.com>
Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Subject: [External] Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] Drivers/DisplayLink/DisplayLinkPkg DisplayLinkGop

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:42:03AM +0000, Andy Hayes wrote:
> Corrected initialisation of one of data structures used to transmit USB
> control messages. Mistake had no practical effects but fixing to be on safe
> side.

So, was the only request used index 0? Or why didn't this cause an
issue? Nevertheless, a clear fix.

> Cc: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Hayes <andy.hayes@displaylink.com>

Reviewed-by: Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>
Pushed as 958aaf600728.

/
Leif

> ---
> Drivers/DisplayLink/DisplayLinkPkg/DisplayLinkGop/UsbTransfer.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Drivers/DisplayLink/DisplayLinkPkg/DisplayLinkGop/UsbTransfer.c b/Drivers/DisplayLink/DisplayLinkPkg/DisplayLinkGop/UsbTransfer.c
> index 252293da39d4..9871ab0378ce 100644
> --- a/Drivers/DisplayLink/DisplayLinkPkg/DisplayLinkGop/UsbTransfer.c
> +++ b/Drivers/DisplayLink/DisplayLinkPkg/DisplayLinkGop/UsbTransfer.c
> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ DlUsbSendControlWriteMessage (
> UINT32 UsbStatus;
> EFI_USB_DEVICE_REQUEST UsbRequest;
>
> - ZeroMem (&Request, sizeof (Request));
> + ZeroMem (&UsbRequest, sizeof (UsbRequest));
> UsbRequest.RequestType = USB_REQ_TYPE_VENDOR | USB_TARGET_INTERFACE;
> UsbRequest.Index = Device->InterfaceDescriptor.InterfaceNumber;
> UsbRequest.Request = Request;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>