Hey Dave,

On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 15:06 +0100, Dave Love wrote:
> 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'.

Ahhhh.  Ok ... then in that case I should put:

"Sun Fire 2200/4150/4450 with ELOM"

I didn't understand that it was an ELOM thing.

> 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;

Fair point.  It's a phrase that I've added to many workarounds as long
as the vendor says that they are working on it.  I think I'll remove it.

> I think it's at least worth saying
> it's not fixed as of

I generally dislike documenting version numbers in b/c they can be out
of date very quickly.  Also, how are you getting the firmware version
number?  B/c the IPMI way to get version numbers doesn't have that much

# > /usr/sbin/bmc-info  | grep sion
Device Revision:   1
Firmware Revision: 2.00
IPMI Version:      2.0
Aux Firmware Revision Info: 302h

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

Ok, hopefully we can get more clarifications.


Albert Chu
Computer Scientist
High Performance Systems Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Freeipmi-devel mailing list

Reply via email to