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. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
