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

Mika Kukkonen mika at osdl.org
Tue Jan 14 16:10:15 PST 2003

Do you have an idea when you are able to open the project? I mean the 
problem with this kind of statements is that I can not do/assume
anything until the project exists in the open source world.


On ti, 2003-01-14 at 11:44, Cress, Andrew R wrote:
> Mika,
> There is a development effort under way (in SOW stage now) to implement a
> library for the SAForum HPI interface on Linux IPMI platforms.  Since the
> OpenIPMI driver is already going to be in the Linux 2.5+ kernel, this should
> help.  The library will be in user-space.
> We anticipate that the licensing issues will be resolved, such that either
> the library will be open, or the non-open parts of the library will be
> isolated to a shared library.  There can also be other HPI libraries for
> other non-IPMI platforms.
> Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mika Kukkonen [mailto:mika at osdl.org] 
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 1:20 PM
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
"Good ideas do not die, they just lie down and get recycled." -- me

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list