[cgl_discussion] Re: Hot Plug support for PICMG2.16
jjg at pt.com
Mon Jan 13 06:15:00 PST 2003
Hmm, didn't see the Hotplug PCI developers info! ;-)
Greg, I had tried to email you a few weeks ago about this (I used an Soma
email address out of the 2.5 hotplug pci driver).
In any case, the identity issue is much easier in PCI since you have the bus
available and the configuration cycle all ready to provide the Vendor and
In PICMG 2.16, the PCIbus is optional. And, from what I am
seeing/hearing/discussing with some of the TEM's and equipment suppliers,
most are going to 2.16 chassis with no PCIbus signaling. So, the present
hotplug code won't work...
The few responses I have received are in favor of IPMI for configuration. It
is easier then the network code (SNMP, custom port #'s) and the
hardware/software for IPMI is up and running very quickly. The only small
problem I see is that IPMI is optional in the present PICMG spec. It is
mandatory for AdvancedTCA (and maybe even the newer CompactTCA) so it is
probably a safe future model. I don't know if many PCI cards have IPMI, but
I believe it is available on some motherboards/systems.
Is IPMI the way to go?
jjg at pt.com
From: cgl_discussion-admin at lists.osdl.org
[mailto:cgl_discussion-admin at lists.osdl.org]On Behalf Of greg k-h
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 3:48 AM
To: cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
Subject: [cgl_discussion] Re: Hot Plug support for PICMG2.16
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 13:37:23 -0800, John Grana wrote:
> Not sure which is ideal, any ideas on the above or others? I have just
> read that Monte Vista and Nokia are working on Hot Device Identity.
> Should I be taking this up with them???
mvista's "Hot Device Identity" is different from this. I'll let someone
from there explain that better...
And any reason for not bringing this up with the Hotplug PCI developers
as well? :)
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
More information about the cgl_discussion