svn commit: r253708 - head/sys/dev/ipmi

[John Baldwin]

On Monday, July 29, 2013 4:21:28 pm Sean Bruno wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 12:59 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 10:54 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:32:34 pm Sean Bruno wrote:
> > > > Author: sbruno
> > > > Date: Sat Jul 27 16:32:34 2013
> > > > New Revision: 253708
> > > > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/253708
> > > > 
> > > > Log:
> > > >   At some point after stable/7 the ACPI and ISA interfaces to the IPMI controller
> > > >   no longer have the parent in the device tree.  This causes the identify
> > > >   function in ipmi_isa.c to attempt to probe and poke at the ISA IPMI interface
> > > 
> > > They never had a common parent, even in 6.x and 7.x.
> > > 
> > The identify function in isa_ipmi.c shows that there is already an
> > ipmi(4) device attached (ACPI) version and aborts on 7.x.  in 9.x and
> > higher (not testing on 8.x) the identify function does not see an
> > attached ipmi interface and attempts to create /dev/ipmi1
> > 
> > Am I just confused on the bus relationship here?
> > 
> > We've gone over this a couple of times in different emails on different
> > lists.  I've just never sat down and walked through the code.  If you
> > see a better way to keep ipmi(4) from erroneously attaching to the ISA
> > interface, let me know.
> 
> 
> Or ... ya know, I could just be 100% wrong?
> 
> stable/7 attaches to an /dev/ipmi1 as well on these Dell R410 units.
> *sigh*
> 
> http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/ipmi_sean_is_wrong.txt

It doesn't attach.  Read the second line here:

ipmi1: <IPMI System Interface> on isa0
device_attach: ipmi1 attach returned 16

Do you have an actual /dev/ipmi1 file if you login to this machine and look in /dev?

> so, the modification I made does resolve the "ipmi1" thing alltogether
> and is correct (AFAIK), but should be applied to all revisions, not just
> 9/head.
> 
> Or, am I wrong again?  :-)

The change you made is purely cosmetic.  It just moves the check slightly earlier to
hide the message.  If you want to hide the message, put the ipmi_attached check in
the ipmi_isa_probe() routine (the other frontend look in probe(), not attach()).

However, that is purely a comsetic issue that should just remove the two printfs,
it should not have _any_ affect on getting NMI's from your bce(4) adapter.

-- 
John Baldwin