[cgl_discussion] Re: Hot Plug support for PICMG2.16

Howell, David P david.p.howell at intel.com
Mon Jan 13 06:38:14 PST 2003

There have been many discussions already about IPMI being closed, mostly
coming from members providing non-IPMI hardware solutions. Seems like an
abstraction layer that could map IPMI or other implementations would be 
in order to solve this for both.

Wasn't there something in the SAF platform specs to address this?

Dave Howell 

These are my opinions and not official opinions of Intel Corp.

David Howell
Intel Corporation
Telco Server Development
Server Products Division
Voice: (803) 461-6112  Fax: (803) 461-6292

Intel Corporation
Columbia Design Center, CBA-2
250 Berryhill Road, Suite 100
Columbia, SC 29210

david.p.howell at intel.com

-----Original Message-----
From: John Grana [mailto:jjg at pt.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 9:15 AM
To: greg k-h; cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Re: Hot Plug support for PICMG2.16

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
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
available and the configuration cycle all ready to provide the Vendor
Device ID's.

In PICMG 2.16, the PCIbus is optional. And, from what I am
seeing/hearing/discussing with some of the TEM's and equipment
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
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,
I believe it is available on some motherboards/systems.

Is IPMI the way to go?

John Grana
jjg at pt.com

-----Original Message-----
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? :)


greg k-h

cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org

cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list