Type 9 offset 0x0d / offset 0x0f / offset 0x10 value should be 0xff for non-PCI

Tue Dec 1 04:15:19 UTC 2020

Hi Bryan,

Please report bugs @ https://bugs.launchpad.net/fwts as it is easier to
track, share and can be used as future references.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 8:31 PM Huang, Bryan <bryanhuang at hpe.com> wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
>
>
> We encountered the following FWTS issue and we tried to track the medium FAILED
> item by SMBIOS SPEC.
>
> It seems that type 9 offset 0x0d / offset 0x0f / offset 0x10 value should
> be 0xff for non-PCI, If the value is 0 for a single-segment topology,
> please refer to the following green part.
>
> But if type 9 offset 0x0d / offset 0x0f / offset 0x10 value is not 0xff or
> 0, Is this a BIOS issue? Please refer to the following orange part.
>

Just for information - the green part and orange is barely visible.

> Would you please help us to confirm it?
>
>
>
> FAILED [MEDIUM]
>
> Invalid value 0x0000 was used and 0xffff should be used for non-PCI(e)
> while accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9df3,
> field 'Segment Group Number', offset 0x0d
>
>
>
> Invalid value 0xfffe was used and 0xffff should be used for non-PCI(e)
> while accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9ee7,
> field 'Segment Group Number', offset 0x0d
>
>
>
> Invalid value 0x86 was used and 0xff should be used for non-PCI(e) while
> accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9e13, field 'Bus
> Number', offset 0x0f
>
>
>
> Invalid value 0x87 was used and 0xff should be used for non-PCI(e) while
> accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9df3, field 'Bus
> Number', offset 0x0f
>
>
>
> Invalid value 0xc1 was used and 0xff should be used for non-PCI(e) while
> accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9e42, field 'Bus
> Number', offset 0x0f
>
>
>
> Invalid value 0xc2 was used and 0xff should be used for non-PCI(e) while
> accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9e63, field 'Bus
> Number', offset 0x0f
>
>
>
> Invalid value 0xc3 was used and 0xff should be used for non-PCI(e) while
> accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9e84, field 'Bus
> Number', offset 0x0f
>
>
>
> Invalid value 0xc4 was used and 0xff should be used for non-PCI(e) while
> accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9ea5, field 'Bus
> Number', offset 0x0f
>
>
>
> Invalid value 0xfe was used and 0xff should be used for non-PCI(e) while
> accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9ec6, field 'Bus
> Number', offset 0x0f
>
>
>
> Invalid value 0x00 was used and 0xff should be used for non-PCI(e) while
> accessing entry 'System Slot Information (Type 9)' @ 0x529e9df3, field
> 'Device/Function Number', offset 0x10
>
>
>
>
>
> SMBIOS Type 9
>
> SMBIOS SPEC:
> https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP0134_3.4.0.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bryan
>
> *From:* Huang, Bryan
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 6:06 PM
> *To:* Alex Hung <alex.hung at canonical.com>
> *Cc:* Huang, Naomi <yun-shan.huang at hpe.com>; fwts-devel at lists.ubuntu.com;
> Kuan, Bob <bob.kuan at hpe.com>; Lin, Kevin (ISS ROMQA) <kevin.lin at hpe.com>;
> Chuang, Brian (HPE DVT UEFI) <brian.chuang2 at hpe.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Out of range value 0x3d of Type 4 Offset 0x19 and out of
> range value 0x26 of Type 9 Offset 0x05
>
>
>
> Hi Alex,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> The SMBIOS version is 3.4.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bryan
>
> *From:* Alex Hung [mailto:alex.hung at canonical.com
> <alex.hung at canonical.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 5:15 PM
> *To:* Huang, Bryan <bryanhuang at hpe.com>
> *Cc:* Huang, Naomi <yun-shan.huang at hpe.com>; fwts-devel at lists.ubuntu.com;
> Kuan, Bob <bob.kuan at hpe.com>; Lin, Kevin (ISS ROMQA) <kevin.lin at hpe.com>;
> Chuang, Brian (HPE DVT UEFI) <brian.chuang2 at hpe.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Out of range value 0x3d of Type 4 Offset 0x19 and out of
> range value 0x26 of Type 9 Offset 0x05
>
>
>
> A patch was sent for review -
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/fwts/patch/20201130084207.68723-1-alex.hung@canonical.com/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:58 AM Huang, Bryan <bryanhuang at hpe.com> wrote:
>
> Loop Naomi in the mail loop
>
>
>
> *From:* Alex Hung [mailto:alex.hung at canonical.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 4:28 PM
> *To:* Huang, Bryan <bryanhuang at hpe.com>
> *Cc:* fwts-devel at lists.ubuntu.com; Kuan, Bob <bob.kuan at hpe.com>; Lin,
> Kevin (ISS ROMQA) <kevin.lin at hpe.com>; Chuang, Brian (HPE DVT UEFI) <
> brian.chuang2 at hpe.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Out of range value 0x3d of Type 4 Offset 0x19 and out of
> range value 0x26 of Type 9 Offset 0x05
>
>
>
> Hi Bryan,
>
>
>
> FWTS also checks for the SMBIOS version (= 3.3 currently) like below. In
> theory FWTS will skip the dmicheck test. Did you also upgrade your SMBIOS
> version to 3.4?
>
>
>
>
>
> if (version > DMI_VERSION) {
> fwts_skipped(fw,
> "SMBIOS version %" PRIu16 ".%" PRIu16
> " is not supported by the dmicheck "
> "test. This test only supports SMBIOS version "
> "%" PRIu16 ".%" PRIu16 " and lower.",
> VERSION_MAJOR(version), VERSION_MINOR(version),
> VERSION_MAJOR(DMI_VERSION), VERSION_MINOR(DMI_VERSION));
> return FWTS_ERROR;
> }
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:11 AM Huang, Bryan <bryanhuang at hpe.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bryan
>
> *From:* Alex Hung [mailto:alex.hung at canonical.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 4:09 PM
> *To:* Huang, Bryan <bryanhuang at hpe.com>
> *Cc:* fwts-devel at lists.ubuntu.com; Kuan, Bob <bob.kuan at hpe.com>; Lin,
> Kevin (ISS ROMQA) <kevin.lin at hpe.com>; Chuang, Brian (HPE DVT UEFI) <
> brian.chuang2 at hpe.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Out of range value 0x3d of Type 4 Offset 0x19 and out of
> range value 0x26 of Type 9 Offset 0x05
>
>
>
> Hi Bryan,
>
>
>
> Thanks for keeping us posted. I will add SMBIOS 3.4 support to fwts.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:01 AM Huang, Bryan <bryanhuang at hpe.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex and FWTS members,
>
>
>
> Here is TPE HPE Bryan Huang.
>
> We encountered the following FWTS issue and we tried to track the high FAILED
> item by SMBIOS SPEC.
>
> It seems that SMBIOS type 4 offset 0x19 and SMBIOS Type 9 offset 0x05 are
> not out of range.
>
> Would you please help us to confirm it?
>
>
>
> FAILED Item (Please refer to the attachment)
>
> FAILED Out of range value 0x3d (range allowed 0x01..0x3c) while accessing
> entry 'Processor Information (Type 4)' @ 0x533e520e, field 'Upgrade',
> offset 0x19
>
> FAILED Out of range value 0x26 while accessing entry 'System Slot
> Information (Type 9)' @ 0x533e5d04, field 'Slot Type', offset 0x05
>
>
>
> SMBIOS SPEC:
> https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP0134_3.4.0.pdf
>
>
>
> Processor Information (Type 4) offset 0x19
>
>
>
>
>
> Please refer to the SMBIOS SPEC above.
>
>
>
> System Slot Information (Type 9) offset 0x05
>
>
>
>
>
> Please refer to the SMBIOS SPEC above.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Bryan
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
> Alex Hung
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
> Alex Hung
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
> Alex Hung
>

-- 
Cheers,
Alex Hung
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18497 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0011.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8705 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0012.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0013.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image015.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5879 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0014.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image017.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4735 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0015.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image019.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0016.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image021.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 8938 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0017.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image023.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9885 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0018.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image024.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 60548 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0019.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18882 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0020.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 30728 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201130/93997a91/attachment-0021.jpg>