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

[Sousou, Imad]

What's stopping people from working on SAForum things is the SAF's license
issue.... has this (When will this) be resolved?
imad

-----Original Message-----
From: Mika Kukkonen [mailto:mika at osdl.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 10:20 AM
To: Howell, David P
Cc: John Grana; greg k-h; cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] Re: Hot Plug support for PICMG2.16


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? :-)

--MiKu


_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion