[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Submitting patches

From: Albert Chu
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] Submitting patches
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:59:31 -0700

Hi Dann,

Thanks for the additional info, I wasn't aware of it.

In that case, I think we can use the patch.

What's the urgency on a new release w/ this patch?


On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 10:28 -0600, Dann Frazier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Newell Jensen <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Adding in Dann Frazier to thread
> Thanks Newell!
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Albert Chu <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Newell,
> >>
> >> Hmmm, I'm not sure if your patch is the right approach.  While there may
> >> be a problem w/ /dev/mem on your system, it may not be something that
> >> exists on all systems.  Or if it's a bug, it may be fixed in the future.
> >> So just removing the probes on arm64 may not be the best choice.
> While SMBIOS tables will certainly exist on ARM systems, they should
> be described properly by firmware (e.g. EFI) and exposed by the kernel
> at /sys/firmware/dmi/tables/. My understanding is that poking in
> /dev/mem for the table at legacy addresses on ARM will always be bad
> because IO memory is memory mapped. This has been a problem for every
> ARM server platform I've seen (that is, every one supported by
> Ubuntu).
> lshw had this same issue, and we resolved it by dropping the /dev/mem
> probing for ARM (and other platforms), while still retaining
> non-legacy SMBIOS access:
> >> Perhaps a better option would be to create a set of options in
> >> ipmi-locate to limit what probes to do?  That way (if you're scripting
> >> this), you can avoid the probing of known problem areas?
> >>
> >> It probably wouldn't be hard to add a bunch of the options.  Do you
> >> think that'd suffice?
> That would be sufficient for the specific use case Newell and I are
> working in the MAAS project - that is, we could pass different
> parameters depending on the architecture. However, it would still
> remain an issue for other users of ipmi-locate, who would need to know
> that a special argument needs to be passed if they are on ARM.
>  -dann
Albert Chu
Computer Scientist
High Performance Systems Division
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]