From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.158.5; helo=mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=anoo@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (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 47CNLY5gx4zF42k; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:52:52 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xACMqIAq088144; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:52:49 -0500 Received: from ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (1b.90.2fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.47.144.27]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2w7qdc9bj8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:52:48 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xACMoh4V030401; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:52:48 GMT Received: from b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.17]) by ppma05wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2w5n36avwh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:52:48 +0000 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.233]) by b03cxnp08025.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id xACMqll656426988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:52:47 GMT Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C02C136051; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:52:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DB113604F; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:52:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ltc.linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.16.170.189]) by b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:52:46 +0000 (GMT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:54:22 -0600 From: Adriana Kobylak To: "Alexander A. Filippov" Cc: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, openbmc Subject: Re: Packaging and deploying multiple firmware image types in one In-Reply-To: <20191112074921.GA4938@bbwork.lan> References: <20191112074921.GA4938@bbwork.lan> Message-ID: <9ddc3deca00904404c72a49c4f89c8a4@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Sender: anoo@linux.ibm.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.1 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-12_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1910280000 definitions=main-1911120197 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:52:54 -0000 On 2019-11-12 01:49, Alexander A. Filippov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 01:28:11PM -0600, Adriana Kobylak wrote: > > We use the system bundle of BMC + Host firmware on our VESNIN hardware. How are you currently building the bundled image, do you include the Host firmware in the BMC rootfs, or do you have separate image files (bmc fw file, host fw file) in a single tarball? > There are some things which cause discomfort a little bit: > - The uploaded system bundle isn't shown in the WebUI. > - The system bundle has only one version field which is common for BMC > and Host > firmwares. Do you think the ExtendedVersion d-bus property could help in this case? For example adding to the manifest "extended_version=host-v1.2." > - After rebooting BMC, which is required to complete update the BMC > firmware > the system bundle turns to two separated instances in D-Bus which has > its own > real versions. Yeah, the purpose is not currently preserved across reboots. I have a change here for that: https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/phosphor-bmc-code-mgmt/+/27045 > > Thus, I thought about putting the separate manifests for each part of > the > bundle. If you go the route of adding a second manifest, would you have them in a separate tarball (bmc image + manifest) and (host image + manifest) then put those tarballs inside a tarball? since the manifest file name would be the same. > >> >> --- >> [1] https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/openbmc/2019-June/016573.html >> [2] >> https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/blob/master/xyz/openbmc_project/Software/Version.interface.yaml >> [3] >> https://github.com/openbmc/meta-openpower/blob/master/recipes-phosphor/flash/host-fw_git.bb >> [4] >> https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/blob/master/xyz/openbmc_project/Software/ExtendedVersion.interface.yaml