Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753247AbdHNQSo (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:18:44 -0400 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21002 "EHLO sender-of-o51.zoho.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752384AbdHNQSn (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:18:43 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 921 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:18:43 EDT Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:03:12 -0500 From: Patrick Williams To: Brendan Higgins Cc: minyard@acm.org, benjaminfair@google.com, clg@kaod.org, joel@jms.id.au, andrew@aj.id.au, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/4] ipmi_bmc: framework for IPMI on BMCs Message-ID: <20170814160312.GA20526@asimov.lan> References: <20170808035301.1980-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170808035301.1980-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 1 X-ZohoMailClient: External Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2091 Lines: 52 --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 08:52:57PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > Currently, OpenBMC handles all IPMI message routing and handling in userl= and; > the existing drivers simply provide a file interface for the hardware on = the > device. In this patchset, we propose a common file interface to be shared= by all > IPMI hardware interfaces, but also a framework for implementing handlers = at the > kernel level, similar to how the existing OpenIPMI framework supports both > kernel users, as well as misc device file interface. Brendan, Can you expand on why this is a good thing from an OpenBMC perspective? We have a pretty significant set of IPMI providers that run in the userspace daemon(s) and I can't picture more than a very small subset even being possible to run in kernel space without userspace assistance. We also already have an implementation of a RMCP+ daemon that can, and does, share most of its providers with the host-side daemon. --=20 Patrick Williams --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEBGD9ii4LE9cNbqJBqwNHzC0AwRkFAlmRyb4ACgkQqwNHzC0A wRnu8g//TJ5PqULihwLz2d72rtFvmdI3ZBE8AQcEwdSj3zxtmFedqDSvt1Nh5AVg 6yQwLi1vFyhNJ7VS4BgswXkWbQeWDViJvQPqfuNSCKb6Ohwg6ZYicKlV8YEJHAP9 1T5GnfXfF7EeukrXWtUrhbcsif28BKay4spD11CuQlvN77DvFGD9+UCFGfzksRf+ f261JSMhROTIKavQ2qeWNO99uniibq1hHnjzTZlD3V/V37I/75aHsAO1kIysKmjv BUknjelcL2WgvNM+E9OalCL8flRsznm5gY3udG88i9PvCsB/x+/+h29v1nx/OVjM Vi1+umtJo58+zn5tPH7gpR3OF6kwsTChltM0ewtExQxcdexrGjcNvKyaVvxdqWOd LJ2iaQGRtskYo2a1+gXSli8opaMprrlEHZX13FXrIIUwKJPnQpN6Ae9EdAOE0UHG lLPjZg6PsaD3pE4tbzWBIH2ptAr6M/96vF9Ir4ggprcH6uVZzXbOqzPksxIBRLuo Jab+GfLKnHrEcqaMvQuZVX8HN1L28/ykU1Irobrj5YOSyJ0l3zeWZUdV5n6lJFt9 rmCC5+Os7BKfexWjdhJOBJKl5xCu48ixqxGxY5DihFxAWV9IPMjMUhbdXg02pvNY EunvhBRoOws4j9Mwpw1EUlKD0zdxV4eQtCstKh9M5VelAHg0qRA= =dKGD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH--