Host-side tools

[Patrick Venture]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:49 AM William Kennington <wak at google.com> wrote:
>
> As long as it's possible to build the host side tooling without
> building any of the BMC side tooling and vice versa it sounds fine to
> me.

I've been doing a lot of host-side development lately and I was
interested to know what the end result would be.  If someone ran the
configuration just to use the tool, they might run into issues.  I've
avoided using BMC-side libraries where possible to avoid host-side
tool poisoning.

>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM Brad Bishop
> <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:03:17AM -0800, Patrick Venture wrote:
> > >Brad,
> > >
> > >It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side
> > >tools should be in the same repo,
> >
> > Is this something I said at some point?  Where is this coming from?

I don't have the exact email, and it might have been very very stale
information.  But I'm glad to clear this up! :D

> >
> > >hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash.
> > >However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the
> > >BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side.  Would
> > >it not make sense to sometimes have it split?  And if so, I would like
> > >to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash
> > >tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything
> > >in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like
> > >ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something.
> >
> > I can make a repo if you would like.  Just let me know what you would
> > like it called.

Thanks.  I'm working on an IPMI blob toolset, such that there is a
library that provides host-side blob tooling, and then the flash host
toolset can link against that library and be used on the host.

So that's my goal.  To get there I was thinking,
phosphor-ipmi-blobs-tool (or ipmi-blobs-lib) and
phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool for that side.  The argument against
ipmi-blobs-lib is that there may end up being some basic tool there
tool and not just the library -- do you have any preference in this
case?

I'm definitely seeking suggestions on this.

> >
> > That said, I think you can also probably do this in the same repo, if
> > you wanted, by having different build targets - it might not make any
> > sense to try and build both applications with a single invocation of
> > configure - as you point out, they are being "configured" for vastly
> > different runtime environments.