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

Mika Kukkonen mika at osdl.org
Mon Jan 13 10:19:38 PST 2003

On ma, 2003-01-13 at 06:38, Howell, David P wrote:
> 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?

As our resident SAForum insider (Peter) is out of town, I'll take a shot
on this.

Yes, SAF platform spec is specified so that other implementations than
IPMI can meet it and provide the required functionality. In other words,
I am pretty sure it is possible to make non-IPMI (c)PCI iplementation of
the SAF platform spec.

On the other hand, some people seem to think that IPMI is best since
sliced bread, so in CGL we have not seen any reason to venture outside
IPMI, although as an overall philosophy we try to stay as HW agnostic
as is reasonable (i.e. without sacrificing functionality).

Now the real question (and the main reason for this email) is that who 
is going to implement the SAF platform spec on top of Linux? Assuming
IPMI there should not be much impact on the kernel, but as a first step 
towards the implementation somebody should wade through the spec with
those two things (IPMI & Linux kernel) in mind and find out what needs 
to be done. 

Any volunteers? :-)


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list