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