wrote:
From: Al Chu ch...@llnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] KCS Driver SMS_ATN Register
To: Matt Jerdonek maj1...@yahoo.com
Cc: Anand Babu Periasamy a...@gnu.org.in, freeipmi-devel@gnu.org
Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 10:33 AM
Hi Matt,
I don't see it that way. I could see someone
--- On Thu, 2/25/10, Al Chu ch...@llnl.gov wrote:
From: Al Chu ch...@llnl.gov
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] KCS Driver SMS_ATN Register
To: Matt Jerdonek maj1...@yahoo.com
Cc: Anand Babu Periasamy a...@gnu.org.in,
freeipmi-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 12:49:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] KCS Driver SMS_ATN Register
Hey Matt,
I noticed one or two minor nits, but I can fix em. I guess I am only
perplexed by this design choice. It seems you want to have two threads.
One thread does normal IPMI regularly
Hey Matt,
I noticed one or two minor nits, but I can fix em. I guess I am only
perplexed by this design choice. It seems you want to have two threads.
One thread does normal IPMI regularly, and the other thread will wait
for the SMS_ATN bit. It appears that _ipmi_kcs_get_status() is the only
Please give the attached patch a look. Since you two didn't like the idea of a
callback, I created an API to wait for an event and a second API to cancel the
wait. Basically the application will be responsible for creating a thread
which invokes the API. The API will block the
Hey A.B.,
On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 01:16 -0800, Anand Babu Periasamy wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Al Chu ch...@llnl.gov wrote:
Hey A.B,
Al, Unfortunately SMS_ATN is KCS specific. So we can't create an
abstracted API.
There's no reason other drivers won't have interrupt
for all your comments,
-Matt
From: Al Chu ch...@llnl.gov
To: Anand Babu Periasamy a...@gnu.org.in
Cc: Matt Jerdonek maj1...@yahoo.com; freeipmi-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 9:38:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] KCS Driver SMS_ATN Register
Hey
Matt Jerdonek wrote:
Hello,
The KCS driver appears to not use the SMS_ATN register. This register
is useful for BMC-to-BMC communication to know when the remote BMC has
responded. Are there any plans to monitor this register in future
releases? If not, are the maintainers open to
Hi Matt,
Definitely open to patches. Looking over the IPMI spec, I agree w/
A.B., it seems to be more useful for a higher level monitoring, w/ the
Get Message Flags and similar commands. I can think of several patch
ideas:
1) add a KCS driver flag for checking for SMS_ATN in addition to OBF
-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Thu, February 18, 2010 10:58:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] KCS Driver SMS_ATN Register
Hi Matt,
Definitely open to patches. Looking over the IPMI spec, I agree w/
A.B., it seems to be more useful for a higher level monitoring, w/ the
Get Message Flags and similar commands
: [Freeipmi-devel] KCS Driver SMS_ATN Register
Hi Matt,
Definitely open to patches. Looking over the IPMI spec, I agree w/
A.B., it seems to be more useful for a higher level monitoring, w/ the
Get Message Flags and similar commands. I can think of several patch
ideas:
1) add a KCS
Hello,
The KCS driver appears to not use the SMS_ATN register. This register is
useful for BMC-to-BMC communication to know when the remote BMC has responded.
Are there any plans to monitor this register in future releases? If not, are
the maintainers open to including a patch?
Thanks,
12 matches
Mail list logo
