From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (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 1DC9181DF8 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:22:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id t8so101147658vke.3 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:22:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:importance:thread-index :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ix+arK8++dBH7zWwqY7Rqrfl5l/l38B7FiEVEpEGtco=; b=AdGPmB9rclLUus+Jnnc78y5fZBMZ1rkBcNJ3+4YkQjvFE3oTAbmGX4sAYRhZMsCORB N67/ndgXKeIMs6kCWYrFGRhQ/HVEjvnPmMIFOKvj/0j60ghb3YCwIb+lzfY0PQJTmJwT 8tvhMBiNt0Jm8f7WPrDF3vBDFoBFz/M5Llry0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :importance:thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ix+arK8++dBH7zWwqY7Rqrfl5l/l38B7FiEVEpEGtco=; b=g0v/Pp8DmwIcVeKHdM/djC+PRU9YFkHuPgIZnBxup9yYoSGqeJTx7ZlgIt1MHCAr+g oc9a+7bDqwMzBkYJhUNhKXpnJmN88b43z82Bbb1CqElk290Ev2IAI78P/TAb6DB3iyp9 Cf5GvW5NMKyrdi+qoKXzkQPHW9H/RjiDVFQYKYNMW35S1GFQNvLSbExwJPoZuwDx5qiQ B9kFZMj7dLKq8cRqToqAJHyrouSnSFksVwkFGWx+RnJqO21bA72ZYQrRRkkMFQ8pjZM4 5diEXqbnYaCY7c/PzPXh4vRIOons3sK3opmeeew+1f5INw4yAyKcPWmunO3LU07yW3m2 iHHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKs4PC5rDoZyqrmwEezUanalJ9sC1NDyhhE7+HRouoj0GwJXGE6vWqE57Az5i/ga79USzndK03qHsbrn/l5 X-Received: by 10.31.148.71 with SMTP id w68mr7416563vkd.87.1484688156404; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:22:36 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Samuelraj References: 6aa20a69642c82412e1ed5fcfc720e6f@mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: 6aa20a69642c82412e1ed5fcfc720e6f@mail.gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Importance: High Thread-Index: AdJbFAPuQQ4X5ROyTkWret63bEcHDQV84UFw Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:22:35 -0500 Message-ID: To: edk2-devel@lists.01.org, utwg@uefi.org, uswg@uefi.org Cc: Chidambara GR , Jianning Wang , Sathya Prakash X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.21 Subject: Re: SCT 2.3.1 v1.3 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: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:22:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, What SCT v1.3 states for HII Config Access Protocol seems not in align with UEFI spec? For example, for extract config, when Progress or Result or Request is NULL, SCT is expecting EFI Invalid Parameter; similarly for Route Config, when progress is NULL, SCT expects EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER. UEFI spec doesn=E2=80=99t seem mention anything for these cases. Should driver adhere to what SCT expects? Or is this fixed in newer SCT or will this be addressed in future? Please advise! Thanks, Daniel