From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3vc2Vs0zS4zDqFh for ; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 12:38:28 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.20/8.16.0.20) with SMTP id v261T31C098760 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 20:38:16 -0500 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com (e38.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.159]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 28yuy19tju-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 20:38:16 -0500 Received: from localhost by e38.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:38:16 -0700 Received: from d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.178) by e38.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.138) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:38:13 -0700 Received: from b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.16]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9633E40030; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:38:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.234]) by b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v261cD0I12517862; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:38:13 -0700 Received: from b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196A06A03B; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:38:13 -0700 (MST) Received: from birb.localdomain (unknown [9.185.16.50]) by b03ledav003.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE266A03F; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:38:12 -0700 (MST) Received: by birb.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9FF1F229DB26; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 12:38:08 +1100 (AEDT) From: Stewart Smith To: Brad Bishop , Patrick Williams Cc: OpenBMC Maillist , Venkatesh Sainath , Christopher Bostic Subject: Re: sbefifo userspace api In-Reply-To: <653FA956-68B2-41B4-8233-4A31C57E1E67@fuzziesquirrel.com> References: <9AF20EDE-4CE2-430F-882A-4DB86BBD89BF@fuzziesquirrel.com> <63a66b91-f17c-2501-5f96-cd8b03a0b3cb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <2536438.YnoCRmC1BK@new-mexico> <20170221214916.365zogt3siz2ybi2@asimov> <653FA956-68B2-41B4-8233-4A31C57E1E67@fuzziesquirrel.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+24~gbceb651 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/25.1.1 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:38:08 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 17030601-0028-0000-0000-0000073506C3 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00006730; HX=3.00000240; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000206; SDB=6.00830516; UDB=6.00407384; IPR=6.00608116; BA=6.00005188; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00014522; XFM=3.00000012; UTC=2017-03-06 01:38:15 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17030601-0029-0000-0000-00003419DEE5 Message-Id: <877f4389rz.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-03-06_01:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1702020001 definitions=main-1703060011 X-BeenThere: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Development list for OpenBMC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 01:38:29 -0000 Brad Bishop writes: >> On Feb 21, 2017, at 4:49 PM, Patrick Williams wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 02:34:18AM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote: >>> I would also be interested in the answer to the inverse - why put them >>> in the kernel? There's the OCC hwmon driver - what chip-ops does that >>> need? Just get/putscom? If that's the case I thought we were already >>> exposing scom chip-op operations via an OpenFSI master? >> >> When the P9 chip has security enabled, you cannot even issue SCOM >> operations without going through the SBE FIFO. The SBE provides a >> white-list filtering system that prevents the majority of the SCOM space >> from being accessed. We will need a "SCOM over FIFO" driver on top of >> FSI. > > Well, we need a way to do scoms over sbe. Not sure that equals being > a device driver. As it stands if it were a driver, it would just be > very thin wrapper around the sbefifo driver. it'd be nice if getscom/putscom userspace could be the same on BMC and host though. -- Stewart Smith OPAL Architect, IBM.