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

Tue Dec 1 20:02:15 UTC 2020

Thanks for the information.

These errors will be handled in fwts's SMBIOS 3.4 updates as well.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:08 PM Lin, Kevin (ISS ROMQA) <kevin.lin at hpe.com>
wrote:

> What we use is OCP PCIE NIC card.
> I think OCP NIC card is PCI protocol.
>
> ------------------------------
> *寄件者:* Alex Hung <alex.hung at canonical.com>
> *寄件日期:* 2020年12月1日 星期二 12:43
> *收件者:* Lin, Kevin (ISS ROMQA)
> *副本:* Huang, Bryan; Huang, Naomi; fwts-devel at lists.ubuntu.com; Kuan, Bob;
> Chuang, Brian (HPE DVT UEFI)
> *主旨:* Re: Type 9 offset 0x0d / offset 0x0f / offset 0x10 value should be
> 0xff for non-PCI
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:13 PM Lin, Kevin (ISS ROMQA) <kevin.lin at hpe.com>
> wrote:
>
>> SMBIOS spec 3.4 has new definition for slot type. Those failures below
>> think the slot type 0x24 (Storage card/NVME drive) and 0x26 (OCP NIC card)
>> on our system is  non-PCI device.
>>
>> I think the test is not correct and need to update for SMBIOS spec v3.4 ?
>>
>>
>
> Do you mean OCP is a PCI(e) protocol too?
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Huang, Bryan
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 1, 2020 11:32 AM
>> *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:* Type 9 offset 0x0d / offset 0x0f / offset 0x10 value should
>> be 0xff for non-PCI
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>
>

-- 
Cheers,
Alex Hung
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 109271 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 9511 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0011.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19356 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0012.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 31798 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0013.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10072 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0014.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6403 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0015.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image016.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6960 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0016.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image018.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0017.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image020.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3283 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0018.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image022.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0019.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image025.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5246 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0020.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image026.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6182 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/fwts-devel/attachments/20201201/4dd383ac/attachment-0021.jpg>