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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 20977C433E0 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:58:38 +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 606F064E0F for ; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:58:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 606F064E0F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=stwcx.xyz 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 4DSclv12MlzDqYj for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 01:58:35 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=stwcx.xyz (client-ip=66.111.4.29; helo=out5-smtp.messagingengine.com; envelope-from=patrick@stwcx.xyz; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=stwcx.xyz header.i=@stwcx.xyz header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=pL5YqMcb; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=YRMC+1fh; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (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 4DSc8g6mDMzDsX3 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 01:31:31 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BCD5C00D7; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 09:31:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 30 Jan 2021 09:31:28 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stwcx.xyz; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm1; bh=dDxoeesO9uMahrV2lnJK3g5iFVx mxxWBtmiZ3inOO7w=; b=pL5YqMcbzNh8xRM22CH4r7/4GgodvBsNSGM5bJHLQFx leQ89QKZAtwac/FI4stvZlJ0OYknnalRnazSbwEGZ4SGUZfANSL5cKqpZpXxyliB 1qnHRuREP4Hk93bxQhk9RCVP3vQ1f3vokT1xEhMuDyNqE2gaxtOe+nySN4JaPzqx EUatTJM7H+NvsQfYUGkSOKIABPzROsa5bBNeVyQ9JuhhjcyBLI1YhfYyQv0LlLrw 45r2O6XqGPPQj9Y8VRH+o0wmtXwjkMgN8dEcRlR2t64YLdtuGL+v7V43+X10QfNz 2+jbJryav/t7qiUwrqcPUFyTpvJ9AVsFch0Fj6rQM7A== 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=dDxoee sO9uMahrV2lnJK3g5iFVxmxxWBtmiZ3inOO7w=; b=YRMC+1fh+/o0m1Oba7K3V2 JBx+v0oYMIetjHLCbkzGbBuHjnwqtlqGTLCviAP399RcXhjXvo6Q/yfh1WUjEOwV gZ6HFAllkeeqnBEsAYti+eq61vTXTQSO+dCjXdTgTBHTwiOXpgoqksDYhvIi6tvP igei+p8NN21D5knapzfEUdn7k06WMVIZzVEJErU5K0t1psppCYxyzfqCY3xRDmLw pzwbcEeMXxcyVr9c/gL9QIh8ni7TzxckEHcnvNk26CujZMtDCniDYYVUjHwZ7k2d FyFvCKU+ELQuwYnjwb/Hyc1NZyeOPc0IkVsLypz6y42BzTz+32PwZUj+1DL4iQeA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeeggdeiiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenfg hrlhcuvffnffculdejtddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttddv necuhfhrohhmpefrrghtrhhitghkucghihhllhhirghmshcuoehprghtrhhitghksehsth iftgigrdighiiiqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegheehfeffgeekveehtdfhgfduhfeg fefgtdehhfektdelffevkefgueffhedtieenucfkphepjeeirddvhedtrdekgedrvdefie enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehprght rhhitghksehsthiftgigrdighiii X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (76-250-84-236.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net [76.250.84.236]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A9ED2240057; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 09:31:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 08:31:26 -0600 From: Patrick Williams To: Brad Bishop Subject: Re: Progress Codes in BMC Message-ID: 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UAzcu3xhxhOYcvOZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210128010526.wice3o5qznh4lglw@thinkpad.fuzziesquirrel.com> 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: Supreeth Venkatesh , openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: openbmc-bounces+openbmc=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "openbmc" --UAzcu3xhxhOYcvOZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 08:05:26PM -0500, Brad Bishop wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:52:14AM -0600, Patrick Williams wrote: >=20 > There are multiple sources of the codes - on Power the power sequencing= =20 > is done on the BMC and that is considered part of the server boot so we= =20 > have both those applications indicating their progress along with the=20 > 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. The hosting daemon doesn't really care where it came from. We have this in the fb-ipmi-oem to handle IPMB messages that come from our per-cpu-card uC. > >The daemons > >in question here already support keeping a history as well. I think the > >only think you'd need to do is extend it to be 32-bit or 64-bit progress > >codes instead of just 8-bit, but I see no reason why that shouldn't be > >acceptable. >=20 > Our progress codes are much larger than 64 bits. More like 64 bytes. =20 > Does that still seem acceptable? Maybe we could change Value from a uint64 to a vector? > I'd also like to sort out the external facing interfaces for these codes= =20 > though. My straw-man proposal would be that these are just another log= =20 > service with yet another additionaldatauri attachment in the log=20 > entries. Is this a terrible idea? I think you're asking about Redfish now? I have no opinion on that. The `xyz.opnbmc_project.State.Boot.PostCode` interface contains the history of the `Boot.Raw` values. I think you could generate some kind of "log" from that. --=20 Patrick Williams --UAzcu3xhxhOYcvOZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEBGD9ii4LE9cNbqJBqwNHzC0AwRkFAmAVbbwACgkQqwNHzC0A wRk3xw/9GXJ3/IqCpujzLiMPL+cSqUfbRMS5Wk29jxUUY2CzNowzE9O89GX6wHVg mg8L9zWPYkfVVdLen604YjYPIJKSjK6TAwRtXIe7t/vDENouUIcqHP3iyfX/GUeg XA8tm+MKoC9e88L34bLqAbqjylS+ILTCljCYpGP6v/FTquLsrlLDydtKZGYH88cS PalZ2N/jidTH7SsumL9zBjcjlsZn1/i8u7otvhT+xgQvosThdC9FpuYHKsTN06HL d9o5QgpMAJ0d5xq7BpsJxVm7P7G9SJI3gMpz0MQzwFH/++SZeCoPaAJc05hlRCzF O7cnGhfS/+BaFoHLcRkiPyOOCZQV6whrXgr+JNOZTFWXNB+IJ7Q78fPso3nJJQu1 5fenjz1gmB/ggH1s3CfQsraapfSMuj0gGz1kV0lhayJbR809HgUN56E0qwbDuhNK 97w8PQ00NC8j7XbbIP5eC7saSnfeI5JD9mHygoqk4LHsQZMbnYmXcBb579rLuHwk KmeDYF5GyjhJoTWaih96nAy9fYriAn+E0s+NAsPxJCioePYxwTJt5+H7Nfb0saF0 K56VvnWwXtte6ES6xe9cqOmwZ9h8ZJ8aFxfE+K7NVactSCcM77SoViuMDKQqRxh5 lqolgIogZG9prRAX1tabggKHO4N8Tt0yYznbuMkBDHkOPXJG2fU= =zrnU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UAzcu3xhxhOYcvOZ--