On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 05:53 +0800, Rocky Craig wrote: > Bjorn Helgaas emitted: > > > I disagree that this requirement was lost.... > > Sorry, my words did not convey my intended meaning, which was that > "conformance" or "coherence" was lost, with SPMI also being listed > in ACPI general namespace. > > You actually stated this with greater clarity: > > > There may be firmware that has an SPMI but neglects to put the device > > in the namespace. > > That may be the case on some legacy servers. Yes. In the IPMI 1.5 spec there is no definition of IPMI detection about SPMI. The SPMI is added in IPMI 2.0 spec, which is used to detect the IPMI system interface. Maybe this mechanism is already used on some legacy servers. Maybe there exist both SPMI and IPMI system interface defined in ACPI namespace. But they are the different BMC controllers. In such case we had better not remove the detection of IPMI detection by using SPMI. We can check whether they are the identical device in course of registering IPMI system interface. Thanks. > > Rocky -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
