Re: Supporting new interfaces in phosphor-ipmi-flash

[Troy Lee <troy_lee@aspeedtech.com>]

Hi,

The 01/28/2021 01:48, Benjamin Fair wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 at 08:04, Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 1:44 AM Troy Lee <troy_lee@aspeedtech.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi team,
> > >
> > > For security consideration, user might want to disable AST2500/AST2600 P2A functionality by default. To compensate the effect to phosphor-ipmi-flash, we're planning to support two alternative in-band firmware upgrade over PCIe for AST2500/AST2600 (AST2520 and AST2620 are excluded):
> > >  - Through a reserved **VGA** memory on BAR[0], or
> > >  - Through a reserved **PCIe** shared memory on BAR[1]
> > >
> > > The usage pretty much the same as P2A, but it runs on different BAR, offset and length.
> > > This will involves modifying phosphor-ipmi-flash/[tools|bmc]. Should I create new **interfaces**, e.g. astpcie/astvga?
> >
> > I'm not sure it makes sense to create new interfaces, but rather to
> > add optional parameters for those differences... but I've added some
> > people to the reply line to help answer.
> 
> I'd also prefer optional parameters so we can keep all these PCIe
> configurations grouped together.
> 
Understood. I'll see if I can design it as parameters, either on
compiler time or runtime. Thers is a little different in BMC side, the
ioctl might be different.

> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Troy Lee
> > >
> > >

Thanks for suggestion,
Troy Lee