[cgl_discussion] Hot Plug support for PICMG2.16 - Closure?

Mika Kukkonen mika at osdl.org
Mon Jan 27 09:56:51 PST 2003


As Peter already answered, SAForum has fixed their license, and the
updated license should be on their web site (http://saforum.org/)
"any day now".

As also noted, there is an OpenIPMI project at the SourceForge
(http://openipmi.sourceforge.net/) and also project(s) regarding
the Hot Device Identity (http://hdi.sourceforge.net/, also might
be another one but do not have URL handy right now).

--MiKu

On su, 2003-01-19 at 05:27, John Grana wrote:
> Greetings,
> 	In an attempt to get the PICMG 2.16 Hot Plug issue to some kind of closure,
> I wanted to summarize where I think things are and (might) go forward.
> 
> 	To recap. Hot Plug for PICMG 2.16 and future CompactPCI architectures
> require a change to the way the present 2.5 code handles Hot Plug. Since
> there is no PCI signaling on these new backplanes, the Identity portion
> needs to use a different method to identify what card is in a slot. I had
> proposed 4 ideas - 3 based on ethernet/TCP and 1 on IPMI. The few responses
> I received felt the network method was not ideal - took too long, etc. So,
> IPMI was the choice. IPMI is optional in PICMG 2.16 (but I believe a huge
> majority of manufacturers implement it) and is required in CompactTCA and
> AdvancedTCA. So, summary - IPMI is the method.
> 
> 	Now, the next hurdle is to specify how to use IPMI. Andrew Cress proposed a
> library and driver from the SAForum that can be the basis. The one issue
> appears to be in licensing - see thread below. So, we can either
> beg/plead/pray they whatever the issues are get resolved or just
> architect/write our own. It would be a shame to duplicate the work, but what
> the heck. For Hot Identity, there is not that much to do really. I am
> willing to start the begging/pleading to see how to get this done.
> 
> 	Summary - IPMI is the underlying method to do Hot Identity in PICMG 2.16,
> CompactTCA and AdvancedTCA systems.
> 	We can hope the SAforum opens it's IMPI work, or implement just what we
> need.
> 
> Thanks for the responses and suggestions.
> 
> John Grana
> jjg at pt.com
> Performance Technologies, Inc.
> www.pt.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cress, Andrew R [mailto:andrew.r.cress at intel.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:44 PM
> To: 'Mika Kukkonen'; 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
> 
> 
> 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





More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list