On 11/08/2023 09:51, Vikash Garodia wrote:
On 8/11/2023 2:11 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 11/08/2023 06:54, Vikash Garodia wrote:
The case is all about rogue firmware. If there is a need to fill the same cap
again, that itself indicates that the payload from firmware is not correct. In
such cases, the old as well as new cap data are not reliable. Though the
authenticity of the data cannot be ensured, the check would avoid any OOB during
such rogue firmware case.
Then why favour the old cap report over the new ?
When the driver hits the case for OOB, thats when it knows that something has
gone wrong. Keeping old or new, both are invalid values in such case, nothing to
favor any value.
Regards,
Vikash
Is this hypothetical or a real bug you are actually working to mitigate ?
---
bod
