Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

[Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2054 bytes --]


Hi Sekar,
This is Abner Chang from HPE Server BIOS team, our team is also working on UEFI/EDK2 Redfish open source solution (just FYI the POC code is almost done).

I read through the Remote BIOS configuration proposal and would like to see if we still have chance to make some changes on it to reduce the efforts on both BMC and BIOS. Also get rid of using PLDM BIOS control/Configuration methodology because we can find the equivalent method if use Redfish service.
I understand that this proposal is focus on the early system firmware POST, and the firmware solution could be EDK2 + Linux boot. That means this firmware solution may not have the network driver stack to communicate with Redfish service through vNIC. So some ideas proposed here are understandable such as the special format of BIOS resource and the IPMI channel to BMC. However, some of the designs proposed here would be the additional effort to current system firmware (e.g. EDK2 PEI/ or early DXE phase) implementation and BMC as well.
The proprietary format of BIOS resource (Type 0/1) is one issue. We think it would be better to just leverage JSON format (which follows BIOS/AttributeRegistry data model) and carried by HTTP. The payload could be compressed by Redfish supported compress algorithm (gzip) and delivered over whatever non network stack based channel (e.g. IPMI proposed here) in the early POST.
With this, we may leverage system firmware drivers for building up the payload between BIOS and BMC. This could reduce system firmware effort and get rid of proprietary format of BIOS resource in XML. Furthermore, the architecture of OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration would be more closer to the current Redfish service implementation. BMC can leverage the implementation of Redfish service if the payload is carried by HTTP message with JSON format which follow Redfish BIOS data model
We don't have much concerns of the transport layer between BMC<->BIOS because it is used in the early system POST, stay with IPMI looks fine for now.

Thanks
Abner



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5850 bytes --]

Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

[Deepak Kodihalli]

On 23/07/20 2:04 pm, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
> Hi Sekar,
> This is Abner Chang from HPE Server BIOS team, our team is also working 
> on UEFI/EDK2 Redfish open source solution (just FYI the POC code is 
> almost done).
> 
> I read through the Remote BIOS configuration proposal and would like to 
> see if we still have chance to make some changes on it to reduce the 
> efforts on both BMC and BIOS. Also get rid of using PLDM BIOS 
> control/Configuration methodology because we can find the equivalent 
> method if use Redfish service.

The design describes PLDM as one of the alternatives, but it is not the 
only. The design talks about inband IPMI as well. In other words, the 
design doesn't mandate what inband communication protocol BIOS and BMC 
should use. On certain IBM systems, this protocol is PLDM.

Regards,
Deepak

RE: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

[Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist)]

Thanks for the information Deepak,

I am afraid that once some code is contributed to the open source, then that code could become the standard implementation and used by BMC vendors. To support PLDM or other protocols between BIOS<->BMC result in the different implementations from BMC view point. Shall we standardize the spec and the implementation as well? If we would like to give the flexibility to support BIOS <-> BMC protocols for the remote BIOS configurations, shall we abstract some layers based on Remote BIOS configuration proposal? Thus OpenBMC can provide the generic (the base implementation) code for BIOS <-> BMC protocol and OEM provides the implementation of abstract driver/library?

Abner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deepak Kodihalli [mailto:dkodihal@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 5:22 PM
> To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) <abner.chang@hpe.com>;
> suryakanth.sekar@linux.intel.com
> Cc: Garrett, Mike (HPE Server Firmware) <mike.garrett@hpe.com>;
> openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org; Wu, Frank (ISS Firmware) <frank.l.wu@hpe.com>
> Subject: Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal
> 
> On 23/07/20 2:04 pm, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
> > Hi Sekar,
> > This is Abner Chang from HPE Server BIOS team, our team is also
> > working on UEFI/EDK2 Redfish open source solution (just FYI the POC
> > code is almost done).
> >
> > I read through the Remote BIOS configuration proposal and would like
> > to see if we still have chance to make some changes on it to reduce
> > the efforts on both BMC and BIOS. Also get rid of using PLDM BIOS
> > control/Configuration methodology because we can find the equivalent
> > method if use Redfish service.
> 
> The design describes PLDM as one of the alternatives, but it is not the only.
> The design talks about inband IPMI as well. In other words, the design
> doesn't mandate what inband communication protocol BIOS and BMC should
> use. On certain IBM systems, this protocol is PLDM.
> 
> Regards,
> Deepak

Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

[Deepak Kodihalli]

On 23/07/20 6:29 pm, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
> Thanks for the information Deepak,
> 
> I am afraid that once some code is contributed to the open source, then that code could become the standard implementation and used by BMC vendors. To support PLDM or other protocols between BIOS<->BMC result in the different implementations from BMC view point. Shall we standardize the spec and the implementation as well? If we would like to give the flexibility to support BIOS <-> BMC protocols for the remote BIOS configurations, shall we abstract some layers based on Remote BIOS configuration proposal? Thus OpenBMC can provide the generic (the base implementation) code for BIOS <-> BMC protocol and OEM provides the implementation of abstract driver/library?

Hi Abner,

I think the intent of the remote bios config app is aligned with what 
you mention above. The app isn't tied up with any of the protocols - 
IPMI, PLDM, Redfish etc. The abstraction the app relies on is D-Bus, 
which is the the abstraction for several other OpenBMC apps. This app 
will implement the following D-Bus interface - 
https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/blob/master/xyz/openbmc_project/BIOSConfig/Manager.interface.yaml. 
This means apps like the IPMI and PLDM daemons have to convert their own 
BIOS formats to this, and apps like webserver will convert between this 
and Redfish.

The D-Bus API I pointed to above was recently merged via this commit :
https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/#/c/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-interfaces/+/18242/

Regards,
Deepak

RE: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

[Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist)]

Thanks Deepak, I think I am getting more understand the proposal delineated in this figure.

RBC daemon and D-Bus to RBC are standardized. However, there are two implementation samples  mentioned in this Doc (for BIOS provisioning/consume and modify settings) based on the RBC design. One is the proprietary format in XML over IPMI, another is PLDM over MCTP. Above are not standardized and could be replaced by OEM/Vendor if they don't like either one.  PLDM daemon is not the standard neither, that is only necessary for PLDM solution.
For the immediate update scenario, how BMC inform BIOS to update BIOS configurations is not standardized. SMI or other methods could be used to achieve immediate update.
Anything I missed?

thanks
Abner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deepak Kodihalli [mailto:dkodihal@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 9:15 PM
> To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) <abner.chang@hpe.com>;
> suryakanth.sekar@linux.intel.com
> Cc: Garrett, Mike (HPE Server Firmware) <mike.garrett@hpe.com>;
> openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org; Wu, Frank (ISS Firmware) <frank.l.wu@hpe.com>
> Subject: Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal
> 
> On 23/07/20 6:29 pm, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
> > Thanks for the information Deepak,
> >
> > I am afraid that once some code is contributed to the open source, then
> that code could become the standard implementation and used by BMC
> vendors. To support PLDM or other protocols between BIOS<->BMC result in
> the different implementations from BMC view point. Shall we standardize
> the spec and the implementation as well? If we would like to give the
> flexibility to support BIOS <-> BMC protocols for the remote BIOS
> configurations, shall we abstract some layers based on Remote BIOS
> configuration proposal? Thus OpenBMC can provide the generic (the base
> implementation) code for BIOS <-> BMC protocol and OEM provides the
> implementation of abstract driver/library?
> 
> Hi Abner,
> 
> I think the intent of the remote bios config app is aligned with what you
> mention above. The app isn't tied up with any of the protocols - IPMI, PLDM,
> Redfish etc. The abstraction the app relies on is D-Bus, which is the the
> abstraction for several other OpenBMC apps. This app will implement the
> following D-Bus interface - https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-
> interfaces/blob/master/xyz/openbmc_project/BIOSConfig/Manager.interfa
> ce.yaml.
> This means apps like the IPMI and PLDM daemons have to convert their own
> BIOS formats to this, and apps like webserver will convert between this and
> Redfish.
> 
> The D-Bus API I pointed to above was recently merged via this commit :
> INVALID URI REMOVED
> 2Dproject.xyz_-23_c_openbmc_phosphor-2Ddbus-2Dinterfaces_-
> 2B_18242_&d=DwICaQ&c=C5b8zRQO1miGmBeVZ2LFWg&r=_SN6FZBN4Vgi4
> Ulkskz6qU3NYRO03nHp9P7Z5q59A3E&m=JJHJdlINVSumLttqs0AOt0Vng4_lFU
> r7ADZSVgn9Alo&s=KIUpmNseEHsbfR9Ozie7e9jqV5qQBVV1Z5LZXUdB7uo&e
> =
> 
> Regards,
> Deepak
> 

Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

[Deepak Kodihalli]

On 27/07/20 12:46 pm, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
> Thanks Deepak, I think I am getting more understand the proposal delineated in this figure.
> 
> RBC daemon and D-Bus to RBC are standardized. However, there are two implementation samples  mentioned in this Doc (for BIOS provisioning/consume and modify settings) based on the RBC design. One is the proprietary format in XML over IPMI, another is PLDM over MCTP. Above are not standardized and could be replaced by OEM/Vendor if they don't like either one.  PLDM daemon is not the standard neither, that is only necessary for PLDM solution.
You're right. Feel free to push a patch if the current doc doesn't make 
it very clear that the proprietary and PLDM formats mentioned are just a 
couple of example flows, and the not the only possible ones.

> For the immediate update scenario, how BMC inform BIOS to update BIOS configurations is not standardized. SMI or other methods could be used to achieve immediate update.

Right, again some kind of interrupt/signal the BMC can send and the BIOS 
can understand.

> Anything I missed?

I believe you have the right understanding.

Regards,
Deepak

> thanks
> Abner
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Deepak Kodihalli [mailto:dkodihal@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 9:15 PM
>> To: Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) <abner.chang@hpe.com>;
>> suryakanth.sekar@linux.intel.com
>> Cc: Garrett, Mike (HPE Server Firmware) <mike.garrett@hpe.com>;
>> openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org; Wu, Frank (ISS Firmware) <frank.l.wu@hpe.com>
>> Subject: Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal
>>
>> On 23/07/20 6:29 pm, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
>>> Thanks for the information Deepak,
>>>
>>> I am afraid that once some code is contributed to the open source, then
>> that code could become the standard implementation and used by BMC
>> vendors. To support PLDM or other protocols between BIOS<->BMC result in
>> the different implementations from BMC view point. Shall we standardize
>> the spec and the implementation as well? If we would like to give the
>> flexibility to support BIOS <-> BMC protocols for the remote BIOS
>> configurations, shall we abstract some layers based on Remote BIOS
>> configuration proposal? Thus OpenBMC can provide the generic (the base
>> implementation) code for BIOS <-> BMC protocol and OEM provides the
>> implementation of abstract driver/library?
>>
>> Hi Abner,
>>
>> I think the intent of the remote bios config app is aligned with what you
>> mention above. The app isn't tied up with any of the protocols - IPMI, PLDM,
>> Redfish etc. The abstraction the app relies on is D-Bus, which is the the
>> abstraction for several other OpenBMC apps. This app will implement the
>> following D-Bus interface - https://github.com/openbmc/phosphor-dbus-
>> interfaces/blob/master/xyz/openbmc_project/BIOSConfig/Manager.interfa
>> ce.yaml.
>> This means apps like the IPMI and PLDM daemons have to convert their own
>> BIOS formats to this, and apps like webserver will convert between this and
>> Redfish.
>>
>> The D-Bus API I pointed to above was recently merged via this commit :
>> INVALID URI REMOVED
>> 2Dproject.xyz_-23_c_openbmc_phosphor-2Ddbus-2Dinterfaces_-
>> 2B_18242_&d=DwICaQ&c=C5b8zRQO1miGmBeVZ2LFWg&r=_SN6FZBN4Vgi4
>> Ulkskz6qU3NYRO03nHp9P7Z5q59A3E&m=JJHJdlINVSumLttqs0AOt0Vng4_lFU
>> r7ADZSVgn9Alo&s=KIUpmNseEHsbfR9Ozie7e9jqV5qQBVV1Z5LZXUdB7uo&e
>> =
>>
>> Regards,
>> Deepak
>>
> 

Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

[Sekar, Suryakanth]

Sorry, I was Out of Office  few days and busy in other priority.

Abner,

we are supporting Intel uses  OEM IPMI command , IBM  uses  PLDM method 
is transfer data from BIOS to the BMC.

In Intel, we are using (Intel prop) XML format which contain all needed 
info  from BIOS to the BMC.

Let me know whats requirement. we can discuss the same.

This BIOS config -setting   should be generic.


Thanks

Suryakanth.S


On 7/23/2020 2:51 PM, Deepak Kodihalli wrote:
> On 23/07/20 2:04 pm, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
>> Hi Sekar,
>> This is Abner Chang from HPE Server BIOS team, our team is also 
>> working on UEFI/EDK2 Redfish open source solution (just FYI the POC 
>> code is almost done).
>>
>> I read through the Remote BIOS configuration proposal and would like 
>> to see if we still have chance to make some changes on it to reduce 
>> the efforts on both BMC and BIOS. Also get rid of using PLDM BIOS 
>> control/Configuration methodology because we can find the equivalent 
>> method if use Redfish service.
>
> The design describes PLDM as one of the alternatives, but it is not 
> the only. The design talks about inband IPMI as well. In other words, 
> the design doesn't mandate what inband communication protocol BIOS and 
> BMC should use. On certain IBM systems, this protocol is PLDM.
>
> Regards,
> Deepak
>

Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

[Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2525 bytes --]

Hi Sakar, thanks for the response.
After some conversations with OpenBMC people, I recognized RBC daemon is standardized and Intel or IBM have their own implementations to collaborate with RBC daemon.

For the OEM ipmi commands defined for BIOS and bmc communication, you probably can join  Redfish Host Interface meeting because we are defining the IPMI Redfish command in this meeting. You may also reach out to John Leun from intel, who is the representative of Intel for that meeting.

I may have PR of the Remote Bios  configuration document for some  cosmetic revises and make this spec more clear on system firmware point of view.

Thanks
Abner

________________________________
From: Sekar, Suryakanth <suryakanth.sekar@linux.intel.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 5:30:06 PM
To: Deepak Kodihalli <dkodihal@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) <abner.chang@hpe.com>
Cc: Garrett, Mike (HPE Server Firmware) <mike.garrett@hpe.com>; openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org <openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wu, Frank (ISS Firmware) <frank.l.wu@hpe.com>
Subject: Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

Sorry, I was Out of Office  few days and busy in other priority.

Abner,

we are supporting Intel uses  OEM IPMI command , IBM  uses  PLDM method
is transfer data from BIOS to the BMC.

In Intel, we are using (Intel prop) XML format which contain all needed
info  from BIOS to the BMC.

Let me know whats requirement. we can discuss the same.

This BIOS config -setting   should be generic.


Thanks

Suryakanth.S


On 7/23/2020 2:51 PM, Deepak Kodihalli wrote:
> On 23/07/20 2:04 pm, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
>> Hi Sekar,
>> This is Abner Chang from HPE Server BIOS team, our team is also
>> working on UEFI/EDK2 Redfish open source solution (just FYI the POC
>> code is almost done).
>>
>> I read through the Remote BIOS configuration proposal and would like
>> to see if we still have chance to make some changes on it to reduce
>> the efforts on both BMC and BIOS. Also get rid of using PLDM BIOS
>> control/Configuration methodology because we can find the equivalent
>> method if use Redfish service.
>
> The design describes PLDM as one of the alternatives, but it is not
> the only. The design talks about inband IPMI as well. In other words,
> the design doesn't mandate what inband communication protocol BIOS and
> BMC should use. On certain IBM systems, this protocol is PLDM.
>
> Regards,
> Deepak
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4622 bytes --]

Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal

[Sekar, Suryakanth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2854 bytes --]

Sure Abner.  We discussed the same earlier but I didnt follow up with 
latest Redfish Host interface spec.

I will sync with him on this.

On 7/31/2020 7:50 PM, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
> Hi Sakar, thanks for the response.
> After some conversations with OpenBMC people, I recognized RBC daemon 
> is standardized and Intel or IBM have their own implementations to 
> collaborate with RBC daemon.
>
> For the OEM ipmi commands defined for BIOS and bmc communication, you 
> probably can join  Redfish Host Interface meeting because we are 
> defining the IPMI Redfish command in this meeting. You may also reach 
> out to John Leun from intel, who is the representative of Intel for 
> that meeting.
>
> I may have PR of the Remote Bios  configuration document for some  
> cosmetic revises and make this spec more clear on system firmware 
> point of view.
>
> Thanks
> Abner
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Sekar, Suryakanth <suryakanth.sekar@linux.intel.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 5:30:06 PM
> *To:* Deepak Kodihalli <dkodihal@linux.vnet.ibm.com>; Chang, Abner 
> (HPS SW/FW Technologist) <abner.chang@hpe.com>
> *Cc:* Garrett, Mike (HPE Server Firmware) <mike.garrett@hpe.com>; 
> openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org <openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org>; Wu, Frank (ISS 
> Firmware) <frank.l.wu@hpe.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Question about OpenBMC Remote BIOS configuration proposal
> Sorry, I was Out of Office  few days and busy in other priority.
>
> Abner,
>
> we are supporting Intel uses  OEM IPMI command , IBM uses  PLDM method
> is transfer data from BIOS to the BMC.
>
> In Intel, we are using (Intel prop) XML format which contain all needed
> info  from BIOS to the BMC.
>
> Let me know whats requirement. we can discuss the same.
>
> This BIOS config -setting   should be generic.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Suryakanth.S
>
>
> On 7/23/2020 2:51 PM, Deepak Kodihalli wrote:
> > On 23/07/20 2:04 pm, Chang, Abner (HPS SW/FW Technologist) wrote:
> >> Hi Sekar,
> >> This is Abner Chang from HPE Server BIOS team, our team is also
> >> working on UEFI/EDK2 Redfish open source solution (just FYI the POC
> >> code is almost done).
> >>
> >> I read through the Remote BIOS configuration proposal and would like
> >> to see if we still have chance to make some changes on it to reduce
> >> the efforts on both BMC and BIOS. Also get rid of using PLDM BIOS
> >> control/Configuration methodology because we can find the equivalent
> >> method if use Redfish service.
> >
> > The design describes PLDM as one of the alternatives, but it is not
> > the only. The design talks about inband IPMI as well. In other words,
> > the design doesn't mandate what inband communication protocol BIOS and
> > BMC should use. On certain IBM systems, this protocol is PLDM.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Deepak
> >

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6879 bytes --]