On 03/28/2017 05:06 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Corey Minyard <minyard@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 03/25/2017 09:08 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
On 3/24/2017 10:55 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:
Why would a timeout for a message be expected? The BMC should
at least respond with an error for an incorrect message.
Let me add some more context...
In this particular case, the FRU ID that I was trying to access was
correct.
Platform supports PCIe hotplug. The FRU is embedded into the HW that
is being removed. That's what I mean by non-existent.
When the device is ejected and a FRU command is executed, BMC times out
reaching to the FRU on the device.
When the device is inserted, everything works as expected.
I haven't added this yet. Someone who knows more about the ACPI side of
IPMI
should probably comment. So I've added Lv Zheng.
This is ok with me, though. If you remove a management controller, a
timeout is
expected. However, if the management controller is still present, a timeout
is
probably not the best error code, "destination unavailable" is probably a
better
choice.
So:
Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@xxxxxxxxxx>
-corey
FWIW, this change is fine by me, so please feel free to route this
through the IPMI tree along with the other patch from Sinan.
Ok, done, with your ack added.
Thanks,
-corey
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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
