Al Chu <ch...@llnl.gov> writes:

> Hey Dave,
>
> Thanks for some of the clarifications.  I'd like to keep the ordering
> the same b/c it's actually split up IPMI 1.5 vs. IPMI 2.0.

Ah, that wasn't immediately obvious.

> And some of the text was from folks at Sun.  So I've done the below
> patch instead.  Look good?

I think it's misleading to list `Sun Fire X2200/X4150/X4450' other than
as examples.  As far as I can tell, this is a generic ELOM thing, and
the should say `ELOM'.  Also, the `reported to be fixed in a later
release' is from at least a year ago, according to CVS, and it hasn't
happened yet as far as I can tell; I think it's at least worth saying
it's not fixed as of 2.0.2.5.

I could see if my hardware-oriented HPC Sun contact knows any more if
that would be helpful.


_______________________________________________
Freeipmi-devel mailing list
Freeipmi-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel

Reply via email to