ykzhao wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 09:34 +0800, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:28:51AM +0800, ykzhao wrote:
Does there exist the ACPI detection mechanism on the machines you
mentioned? If exists, does it detect the same IPMI interface with the
PCI IPMI detection mechanism?
What is "the same"? It's not using the same ioport space, certainly.
"The same" means that they will use the same ioport space/address.
If they use the different ioport space/address, they will be regarded as
the different IPMI device.
If the two mechanisms will detect the same IPMI interface, I agree with
what you are concerned. Do you have an idea/thought to set up the
relationship between ACPI and IPMI interface? In order to enable that
AML code can access the IPMI, it should know which IPMI interface will
be accessed and create the corresponding user interface. If ACPI
mechanism will fail to register the IPMI interface, maybe it is
difficult to create the correct user interface.
Well, right now if you change the ordering then the PCI interface will
never be exposed. It would be preferable to only expose the ACPI
interface as a user-visible device if there's no prior device - if there
is, I think the ideal solution would be for it to be an in-kernel only
device without a corresponding UI.
Sorry that I don't explain it clearly. The concept of "user interface"
in IPMI interface is only a channel that can be used to communicate with
the IPMI controller. It has no relationship with whether the IPMI
interface should be exposed to user space. If one driver wants to
communicate with one IPMI interface, we should create one "user
interface" firstly and send the corresponding IPMI message by using the
"user interface".
If one IPMI interface(controller) is already detected by PCI mechanism,
then ACPI will fail to detect the same IPMI interface. In such case it
is difficult for ACPI to know which IPMI interface should be accessed
when the ACPI AML code need to communicate with the IPMI interface.
This may all be true, but the IPMI specification clearly gives the
detection order. It's not a good idea to deviate from that without a
very good reason. I'm not sure this is a good enough reason.
Also, the bulk of this code clearly has nothing to do with the system
interface itself and should be in its own file. And is there any reason
to tie this to the SMI code, anyway? There are plenty of systems with
IPMI and ACPI that use I2C or serial ports. Can they not use this ACPI
function (even though their drivers are not in the mainstream kernel)?
Can you look and see if there is some other way to detect the ACPI
function on a BMC with some other mechanism? I think that would be
better all around. If it's the same BMC, the I can't imagine it matters
if you send the messages via the PCI-detected or ACPI-detected mechanisms.
-corey
--
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
