On 8/11/2023 4:09 PM, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > 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 ? These are theoretical bugs, not reported during any video usecase so far. At the same time, these are quite possible when the packets from firmware goes different than expected. > --- > bod
