From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10ECAC433DB for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 00:33:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 744DE64ED0 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 00:33:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 744DE64ED0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=fuzziesquirrel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DV5Pm6qnhzDqqp for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:33:00 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=fuzziesquirrel.com (client-ip=66.111.4.230; helo=new4-smtp.messagingengine.com; envelope-from=bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=fuzziesquirrel.com header.i=@fuzziesquirrel.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=Z8CUGmHm; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=Q0yt3ujn; dkim-atps=neutral X-Greylist: delayed 566 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at bilbo; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 11:31:15 AEDT Received: from new4-smtp.messagingengine.com (new4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DV5Ml5TrhzDqP1 for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 11:31:15 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2815803D3; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 19:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 Feb 2021 19:21:43 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fuzziesquirrel.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm1; bh=okE uHuTYH0tmKCAqogpzi8elif2cgp38DqOCMruScZM=; b=Z8CUGmHmTStwTUoTxr6 G75VQi61i+QuKt8rpetlizwD0ICznauDCV3kh854tE2vL5VZ86ltAPa4CzIrZtmL 4K1xl3FFNaF/3waqSB2xXOic6E54ImgbQrUVP1w/vQlXxf6AnzsY5b4DOO5Kym7/ XoS1cqrUUlC+qNq1JM8/NE4/teyJctN9TM620rjLCdJfdZKgIVWUbWq6aoM5zscu U38A/X4wR3HsFzEgH/pu3he4+gdujxb4V1v6vkKgDurzbQpdCgrzwSVhIeVSFoPx Z3H83Je6qLn+ZTrJKB4inydi1GRKe5MS0RNRzxgSwZiXriT8NOyDeobuO7D1oWn5 WYA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=okEuHu TYH0tmKCAqogpzi8elif2cgp38DqOCMruScZM=; b=Q0yt3ujn7thB/EvVO/VscY kX9aYh3anbychtNKFx9cml/BqPxmwFl7TshCke4donx6Y6BZmc2MPFpfsFV1h/lp K9nL3eX9CQymb3eCLdd1vvKfY68BljhqK5iaDSwvYGM5pVD94EyPf88WRQ1kYfxc 9I+EEBl57nxTSbmdy4RvC8ZSTKw1S5U2nsVYKQ2WUlSJP4qak0cnaXJUholpGrOf cv2u2OT1oUnRNpGnCmdI3I8UFy0vPGmsud+oe5TmiqPOQl7ir2Xkd9bqmKQAms1I 2WYq5v3NORmM2Ae7tLofOFwwwamgUdCHFfqmtRuUMokIxst2+qKJ/F0HkBZWKTSw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeelgddugecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepuehrrgguuceu ihhshhhophcuoegsrhgrughlvgihsgesfhhuiiiiihgvshhquhhirhhrvghlrdgtohhmqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeffffhfeehgedutddvtdeuiefhudeifeekfeeifeekfedu feeuvedulefgkefffeenucfkphepudejfedrudeijedrfedurdduleejnecuvehluhhsth gvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepsghrrggulhgvhigssehf uhiiiihivghsqhhuihhrrhgvlhdrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Received: from thinkpad.fuzziesquirrel.com (unknown [173.167.31.197]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4004B24005E; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 19:21:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 19:21:39 -0500 From: Brad Bishop To: Patrick Williams Subject: Re: Progress Codes in BMC Message-ID: <20210202002139.jsjkl4icge5bf5cb@thinkpad.fuzziesquirrel.com> References: <4795347F-477D-45EF-A145-0C7B163FE01B@getmailspring.com> <7821f27b-31d5-a9d9-a6e6-d709e5456af5@amd.com> <20210128010526.wice3o5qznh4lglw@thinkpad.fuzziesquirrel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kunyi731@gmail.com, anoo@us.ibm.com, benjaminfair@google.com, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, ed@tanous.net, gmills@linux.ibm.com, vishwa@linux.ibm.com, Supreeth Venkatesh , jason.m.bills@linux.intel.com, vijaykhemka@fb.com, wak@google.com Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 08:31:26AM -0600, Patrick Williams wrote: >On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 08:05:26PM -0500, Brad Bishop wrote: >> >> There are multiple sources of the codes - on Power the power sequencing >> is done on the BMC and that is considered part of the server boot so we >> have both those applications indicating their progress along with the >> more traditional progress flowing down from system firmware. > >The `xyz.openbmc_project.State.Boot.Raw` is the interface to use here. >You just write the `Value` property. Ok. Do I have it right - on any application that wants to post a "progress code" you would just implement this interface on a single (arbitrary?) path and continually write to the Value property? >> Our progress codes are much larger than 64 bits. More like 64 bytes. >> Does that still seem acceptable? > >Maybe we could change Value from a uint64 to a vector? Works for me. Does anyone have a problem with this? Hoping the existing users of this interface will speak up - I've CCed them... >> I'd also like to sort out the external facing interfaces for these codes >> though. My straw-man proposal would be that these are just another log >> service with yet another additionaldatauri attachment in the log >> entries. Is this a terrible idea? > >I think you're asking about Redfish now? I have no opinion on that. Yes I'm asking about Redfish. If any of the bmcweb maintainers could speak up on whether or not a LogService is the right path to take here _before_ we get too far down the design path that would be fantastic. thx - brad