lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] IPMI driver for Linux
    Alan Cox wrote:

    >On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 16:47, Corey Minyard wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I have been working on an IPMI driver for Linux for MontaVista, and I
    >>think it's ready to see the light of day :-). I would like to see this
    >>included in the mainstream kernel eventually. You can get it at
    >>http://home.attbi.com/~minyard. It should work on any kernel version,
    >>although you will have to fix up the Config.in and Makefile, and the
    >>Configure.help stuff may not work (it's currently in the 2.4 location).
    >>
    >>The web page has documentation on the driver, and documentation is
    >>included in the patch, too. This is a fairly full-featured driver with
    >>a watchdog, panic event generation, full kernel and userland access to
    >>the driver, multi-user/multi-interface support, and emulators for other
    >>IPMI device drivers.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Comments in general.
    >
    >It touches user space with spinlocks held -> bad idea
    >
    Oops, thanks. I've uploaded a version that fixes this. I only found
    one instance of this, but it's pretty bad.

    >It doesnt check copy_*_user returns instead commenting that some other
    >driver didnt so it wont - bad idea too
    >
    This was only in the emulation code. I debated about this, but it's
    quite possible that doing the check will break the current users of this
    code. I'm afraid if I add the checks it will cause other broken code to
    not work. I could pull out the emulation code and supply it separately;
    I would probably choose to not put that part into the mainstream kernel,
    anyway.

    >It seems to be allocating a major - can you have > 1 ipmi per host, can
    >it use misc devices, can it get one registered properly with lanana
    >
    Yes, you can have multiple IPMI interfaces on a host (I have a board
    that has 3!). There are serial-port interfaces planned that could also
    easily have multiple instances as well as an on-board KCS. If there's
    an easy way to do this with a minor device, I'm all ears, but I'd prefer
    to have a separate device for each interface. This is one of the things
    I wanted discussion about. Once that gets settled, I'll go to lanana.
    Right now it's just being auto-assigned.

    >Otherwise its way way way nicer than the hideous thing a certain chip
    >vendor sent me.
    >
    >
    I know what you mean.

    Thank you for your response and suggestions.

    -Corey
    minyard@acm.org

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.026 / U:63.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site