On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz> wrote: > On Tue 2018-03-06 13:54:16, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 01:40:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> > > Signed-off-by: Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun....@linux.intel.com> >> > > --- >> > > .../devicetree/bindings/peci/peci-aspeed.txt | 73 >> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+) >> > > create mode 100644 >> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/peci/peci-aspeed.txt >> > > >> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/peci/peci-aspeed.txt >> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/peci/peci-aspeed.txt >> > > new file mode 100644 >> > > index 000000000000..8a86f346d550 >> > > --- /dev/null >> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/peci/peci-aspeed.txt >> > > @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ >> > > +Device tree configuration for PECI buses on the AST24XX and AST25XX >> > > SoCs. >> > >> > Are these SoCs x86-based? >> >> ARM, as far as i can tell. If i get the architecture correct, these >> are BMC, Board Management Controllers, looking after the main x86 CPU, >> stopping it overheating, controlling the power supplies, remote >> management, etc. > > Ok, so with x86 machine, I get arm-based one for free. I get it. Is > user able to run his own kernel on the arm system, or is it locked > down, TiVo style?
In the past, they were all locked down, the team submitting those patches in working on changing that. Have a look for OpenBMC. Arnd