Intel-ipmi-oem repo

[Willy Tu]

Ok, sounds good.

I'll look into moving to the IPMID repo with a package config instead.

Maybe we'll get more suggestions in this thread, but  I'll start work in
that direction.

Willy Tu

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:06 PM Ed Tanous <edtanous at google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:40 AM Brad Bishop
> <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 09:38:05AM -0800, Vernon Mauery wrote:
> > >On 14-Jan-2021 08:38 AM, Ed Tanous wrote:
> >
> > >>Would people prefer it to be a package config on IPMID to select
> between
> > >>the two implementations?
> > >
> > >I don't have a problem with a package config to select sensor
> > >implementations.
> >
> > This seems fine to me too.  I looked and there are non-POWER users of
> > the fixed sensor id implementation too so openpower-ipmi-oem probably
> > doesn't make good sense.
> >
> > >I would say that if IBM is the only company using the sensor
> > >implementation that is currently in ipmid, it would be best to move it
> > >to the IBM OEM layer. But it is difficult in a project this size who
> > >is using what.
> >
> > 'grep yaml-config' of the openbmc tree gives a pretty decent indicator
> > of who is using the fixed sensor ID implementation.
> >
> > -brad
>
> It's been on my list for a while to write a script to go build at
> least rudimentary ported entity-manager configs for the existing
> hardware in the tree.  I'd asked James to write this a few times in
> the past, but as we know, we all get busy.  This is just to say, it's
> on my radar to try to try to make this better.
>
> -Ed
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/attachments/20210114/2a9d507d/attachment.htm>