From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from s1-ba86.socketlabs.email-od.com (s1-ba86.socketlabs.email-od.com [142.0.186.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 125E5288C2C for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 22:47:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=142.0.186.134 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782427671; cv=none; b=QKAyjtFdnol6JFJjDmo1/XNIjwQcJ1cQQtxmiMTAf036nzWP8tf67x5Z2UzNMLNH0KrapTAjjbOGJDZdEBVNsVCnsgsuLDDqFoWgsdykbB++zDWXMeyqTdn4cy/nZzd3086K0vI1OO/CMiQtW7QJmVXLAsAOSZ/oOzzENb/GTgc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782427671; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RtI9fysg+ahd7pOOUnZJUDC3u2+HDwCJJJZOI+aVQRk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=ckGE6CH/hLXMqWLpjroFgZ+hVVaWhlJ7RmH4XlR+kkVjDTR1LkHW0Tmtp9iieDNvYCq2T9evGQUkSMSxOmKV5ljriPHXULtDkznKWbZj7I3T+yWosfPH79PVaWiTxZEIACSgSR/vbQO/2pKlajIFqSKaFB0dEWB6RluBQhkjw8k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nalramli.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=email-od.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=email-od.com header.i=@email-od.com header.b=LedrxfhC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=142.0.186.134 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nalramli.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=email-od.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=email-od.com header.i=@email-od.com header.b="LedrxfhC" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=email-od.com;i=@email-od.com;s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; t=1782427670; x=1785019670; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-thread-info:subject:to:from:cc:reply-to; bh=0SPMdx8GhM75GjgCTs3iuFUa8LHOuzvm7UE11WMzpfg=; b=LedrxfhCQWBNfpqC05fVOze1H/0y88mBVdwj/FuJSm15K7udNpCS3UeV+MpOgJ2igtZS3SZZ+ZSy8aZmB00P3D/FhtriyjyIekqkI94pM2Qyr3b/F/+cU+x2AEoHn8GKb4OK6SP1DjBB70MYp48XeBB6iZt/K/3hRRBbTw3riqQ= X-Thread-Info: NDUwNC4xMi40MmE3MTAwMDAwMWU1ZTIubGludXgta2VybmVsPXZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZw== x-xsSpam: eyJTY29yZSI6MCwiRGV0YWlscyI6bnVsbH0= Received: from nalramli-fst-tp.. (d4-50-191-215.clv.wideopenwest.com [50.4.215.191]) by nalramli.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DD542CE019A; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:47:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "Nabil S. Alramli" To: corey@minyard.net Cc: dev@nalramli.com, nalramli@fastly.com, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [bmc/for-next RFC 0/1] ipmi: Retry BMC 100 times Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:47:40 -0400 Message-ID: <20260625224741.3632191-1-dev@nalramli.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello ipmi / BMC experts, We have been dealing with certain servers where the BMC firmware takes longer than usual to become available. We have been able to work around the problem by increasing the BMC retry counter GET_DEVICE_ID_MAX_RETRY from 5 to 100. Would you please share some guidance on whether or not thi= s is a valid approach, and if it would be possible to incorporate in your next release? Best Regards, Nabil S. Alramli (1): ipmi: Retry BMC 100 times include/linux/ipmi.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --=20 2.43.0