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 3x6bKF3lP4zDqgQ for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 07:47:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v6BLiBTZ080701 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:47:27 -0400 Received: from e12.ny.us.ibm.com (e12.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.202]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2bn0mw8v35-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:47:26 -0400 Received: from localhost by e12.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:47:25 -0400 Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.28) by e12.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.199) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:47:24 -0400 Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.107]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v6BLlOML53870824; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:47:24 GMT Received: from b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE3E124035; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from birb.localdomain (unknown [9.81.208.142]) by b01ledav002.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FB7E124037; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 17:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by birb.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C184E4EC748; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 07:47:18 +1000 (AEST) From: Stewart Smith To: Adriana Kobylak Cc: OpenBMC Maillist Subject: Re: OpenBMC Image Management In-Reply-To: References: <75C63AB7-E340-4A78-BA82-80F96EAEA051@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170127030706.GB5504@heinlein.lan> <87o9ypw13y.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170131181641.k3jnv73ha5v2kjsh@asimov> <2DA4883E-3015-4FDF-92FC-F6761436585D@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87y3sv8str.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87mv945y5r.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87wp8528xc.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 07:47:18 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17071121-0048-0000-0000-000001C16B76 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00007351; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000214; SDB=6.00886195; UDB=6.00442335; IPR=6.00666344; BA=6.00005468; NDR=6.00000001; ZLA=6.00000005; ZF=6.00000009; ZB=6.00000000; ZP=6.00000000; ZH=6.00000000; ZU=6.00000002; MB=3.00016184; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2017-07-11 21:47:25 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17071121-0049-0000-0000-000041DA1AFE Message-Id: <87a84abq8p.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-07-11_11:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=1 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1706020000 definitions=main-1707110347 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:47:29 -0000 Adriana Kobylak writes: >> On Jun 21, 2017, at 12:42 AM, Stewart Smith = wrote: >>=20 >> Adriana Kobylak > writes: >>>> On Jun 19, 2017, at 12:44 AM, Stewart Smith wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Adriana Kobylak writes: >>>>>> Why is there mboxbridge separate from phosphor-mboxd? >>>>>=20 >>>>> Because the mboxbridge is being used by other companies as a reference >>>>> to be able to implement the mailbox daemon in their own BMC firmware >>>>> stack for other openpower systems, we didn=E2=80=99t want to =E2=80= =9Cpollute=E2=80=9D the >>>>> repository with openbmc-specific and c++ implementation that could >>>>> confuse them. >>>>=20 >>>> Why are there OpenBMC specific things in mboxd? >>>>=20 >>>> Why can't the reference implementation be used? What's deficient in it? >>>=20 >>> For OpenBMC, we=E2=80=99re having the PNOR chip with a filesystem, so m= boxd >>> would read/write files instead of looking for the data at an offset in >>> the chip. Nothing deficient with it, just a different implementation >>> that needs to be handled. >>=20 >> Why not have an MBOX protocol that supports partitions/files natively >> then? Why not develop this upstream? Surely this is something others >> could be interested in. >>=20 > It=E2=80=99d be available in the openbmc/phosphor-mboxd repo for anybody = that > wants to use it. Or what do you mean by develop it upstream? I mean in https://github.com/openbmc/mboxbridge - the reference implementation. >> It seems really backwards having a bunch of things convert to/from FFS >> for no reason. > > We=E2=80=99re not converting back and forth, if the pnor is blank, we=E2= =80=99ll > attach ubi to it, and if the pnor is formatted as ffs it=E2=80=99ll be > reformatted once to ubi. I mean that I don't see any patches changing how we build things in op-build, so there has to be some unpacking of the content going on there. --=20 Stewart Smith OPAL Architect, IBM.