Intel-ipmi-oem repo

[Brad Bishop]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 08:34:51AM -0800, Ed Tanous wrote:
> 
> On 1/22/19 10:13 PM, Tom Joseph wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 January 2019 03:35 AM, Ed Tanous wrote:
> >> On 1/22/19 10:16 AM, Vijay Khemka wrote:
> >>> In the case of SEL we did make progress and reached a consensus. The
> >>> proposed solution was to support mapping sensor number to sensor
> >>> D-Bus object paths in a flexible way(support both arbitrary mapping
> >>> and hardcoded sensor number), so that IBM systems can coexist with
> >>> the proposed SEL architecture. Jason was pursuing that and we
> >>> haven't heard from him for quite some time, this was brought in the
> >>> community call multiple times. =
> 
> I was unaware Jason was still pursuing that, my understanding was that
> there wasn't a clear path forward for that change series to be
> compatible with IBM systems.  

This should read:

a clear path forward for that change series to be compatible with every
user of the project since it started.  

It is a common misconception that IBM was the only user of/contributor
to this project prior to IBM donating it to The Linux Foundation last year.
In fact there were several contributors and users prior TLF.

> Was there any details on what the proposed
> solution was, and what the next steps are?

Just to level set - Do you expect Tom/IBM to provide the solution?  May I
ask why?  I felt the note from Tom spelled it out pretty clearly - an
abstraction is needed for sensor numbers.

> It sounds like Vijay is
> hitting a bit of a wall with having that stuff checked into meta-intel; 
> I'd much rather roll those changes out into net-ipmid than create a new
> repo.

Me too!

> 
> As Brad said earlier in the thread, the proliferation of repos is
> getting a bit nutty, and I'd like to avoid it if at all possible.
>