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 220.127.116.11. I generally dislike documenting version numbers in b/c they can be out of date very quickly.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 detail. # > /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. Al -- Albert Chu ch...@llnl.gov Computer Scientist High Performance Systems Division Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory _______________________________________________ Freeipmi-devel mailing list Freeipmifirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel