* Host-side tools @ 2019-02-11 16:03 Patrick Venture 2019-02-11 18:50 ` Brad Bishop 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Patrick Venture @ 2019-02-11 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: OpenBMC Maillist, Brad Bishop Brad, It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side tools should be in the same repo, hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash. However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side. Would it not make sense to sometimes have it split? And if so, I would like to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something. Thoughts? Patrick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Host-side tools 2019-02-11 16:03 Host-side tools Patrick Venture @ 2019-02-11 18:50 ` Brad Bishop 2019-02-11 19:48 ` William Kennington 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Brad Bishop @ 2019-02-11 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patrick Venture; +Cc: OpenBMC Maillist On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:03:17AM -0800, Patrick Venture wrote: >Brad, > >It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side >tools should be in the same repo, Is this something I said at some point? Where is this coming from? >hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash. >However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the >BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side. Would >it not make sense to sometimes have it split? And if so, I would like >to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash >tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything >in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like >ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something. I can make a repo if you would like. Just let me know what you would like it called. That said, I think you can also probably do this in the same repo, if you wanted, by having different build targets - it might not make any sense to try and build both applications with a single invocation of configure - as you point out, they are being "configured" for vastly different runtime environments. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Host-side tools 2019-02-11 18:50 ` Brad Bishop @ 2019-02-11 19:48 ` William Kennington 2019-02-11 22:58 ` Patrick Venture 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: William Kennington @ 2019-02-11 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brad Bishop; +Cc: Patrick Venture, OpenBMC Maillist As long as it's possible to build the host side tooling without building any of the BMC side tooling and vice versa it sounds fine to me. On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM Brad Bishop <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:03:17AM -0800, Patrick Venture wrote: > >Brad, > > > >It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side > >tools should be in the same repo, > > Is this something I said at some point? Where is this coming from? > > >hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash. > >However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the > >BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side. Would > >it not make sense to sometimes have it split? And if so, I would like > >to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash > >tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything > >in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like > >ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something. > > I can make a repo if you would like. Just let me know what you would > like it called. > > That said, I think you can also probably do this in the same repo, if > you wanted, by having different build targets - it might not make any > sense to try and build both applications with a single invocation of > configure - as you point out, they are being "configured" for vastly > different runtime environments. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Host-side tools 2019-02-11 19:48 ` William Kennington @ 2019-02-11 22:58 ` Patrick Venture 2019-02-11 23:07 ` Patrick Venture 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Patrick Venture @ 2019-02-11 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: William Kennington; +Cc: Brad Bishop, OpenBMC Maillist On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:49 AM William Kennington <wak@google.com> wrote: > > As long as it's possible to build the host side tooling without > building any of the BMC side tooling and vice versa it sounds fine to > me. I've been doing a lot of host-side development lately and I was interested to know what the end result would be. If someone ran the configuration just to use the tool, they might run into issues. I've avoided using BMC-side libraries where possible to avoid host-side tool poisoning. > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM Brad Bishop > <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:03:17AM -0800, Patrick Venture wrote: > > >Brad, > > > > > >It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side > > >tools should be in the same repo, > > > > Is this something I said at some point? Where is this coming from? I don't have the exact email, and it might have been very very stale information. But I'm glad to clear this up! :D > > > > >hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash. > > >However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the > > >BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side. Would > > >it not make sense to sometimes have it split? And if so, I would like > > >to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash > > >tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything > > >in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like > > >ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something. > > > > I can make a repo if you would like. Just let me know what you would > > like it called. Thanks. I'm working on an IPMI blob toolset, such that there is a library that provides host-side blob tooling, and then the flash host toolset can link against that library and be used on the host. So that's my goal. To get there I was thinking, phosphor-ipmi-blobs-tool (or ipmi-blobs-lib) and phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool for that side. The argument against ipmi-blobs-lib is that there may end up being some basic tool there tool and not just the library -- do you have any preference in this case? I'm definitely seeking suggestions on this. > > > > That said, I think you can also probably do this in the same repo, if > > you wanted, by having different build targets - it might not make any > > sense to try and build both applications with a single invocation of > > configure - as you point out, they are being "configured" for vastly > > different runtime environments. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Host-side tools 2019-02-11 22:58 ` Patrick Venture @ 2019-02-11 23:07 ` Patrick Venture 2019-02-12 17:11 ` Patrick Venture 2019-02-12 21:33 ` Vijay Khemka 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Patrick Venture @ 2019-02-11 23:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: William Kennington; +Cc: Brad Bishop, OpenBMC Maillist On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:58 PM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:49 AM William Kennington <wak@google.com> wrote: > > > > As long as it's possible to build the host side tooling without > > building any of the BMC side tooling and vice versa it sounds fine to > > me. > > I've been doing a lot of host-side development lately and I was > interested to know what the end result would be. If someone ran the > configuration just to use the tool, they might run into issues. I've > avoided using BMC-side libraries where possible to avoid host-side > tool poisoning. > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM Brad Bishop > > <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:03:17AM -0800, Patrick Venture wrote: > > > >Brad, > > > > > > > >It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side > > > >tools should be in the same repo, > > > > > > Is this something I said at some point? Where is this coming from? > > I don't have the exact email, and it might have been very very stale > information. But I'm glad to clear this up! :D > > > > > > > >hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash. > > > >However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the > > > >BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side. Would > > > >it not make sense to sometimes have it split? And if so, I would like > > > >to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash > > > >tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything > > > >in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like > > > >ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something. > > > > > > I can make a repo if you would like. Just let me know what you would > > > like it called. > > Thanks. I'm working on an IPMI blob toolset, such that there is a > library that provides host-side blob tooling, and then the flash host > toolset can link against that library and be used on the host. > > So that's my goal. To get there I was thinking, > phosphor-ipmi-blobs-tool (or ipmi-blobs-lib) and > phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool for that side. The argument against > ipmi-blobs-lib is that there may end up being some basic tool there > tool and not just the library -- do you have any preference in this > case? Reviewing my goals further, the idea of having an ipmi-blobs-lib or ipmi-blobslib repo would be helpful. I could do all the host-side blob tooling there, and have that be a dependency of phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool. Which leaves me with two repo requests: ipmi-blobslib phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool You could add the phosphor prefix to the ipmi-blobslib if you wanted for consistency since its' meant to work with and on the phosphor environment. > > I'm definitely seeking suggestions on this. > > > > > > > That said, I think you can also probably do this in the same repo, if > > > you wanted, by having different build targets - it might not make any > > > sense to try and build both applications with a single invocation of > > > configure - as you point out, they are being "configured" for vastly > > > different runtime environments. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Host-side tools 2019-02-11 23:07 ` Patrick Venture @ 2019-02-12 17:11 ` Patrick Venture 2019-02-12 21:33 ` Vijay Khemka 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Patrick Venture @ 2019-02-12 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: William Kennington; +Cc: Brad Bishop, OpenBMC Maillist On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:07 PM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:58 PM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:49 AM William Kennington <wak@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > As long as it's possible to build the host side tooling without > > > building any of the BMC side tooling and vice versa it sounds fine to > > > me. > > > > I've been doing a lot of host-side development lately and I was > > interested to know what the end result would be. If someone ran the > > configuration just to use the tool, they might run into issues. I've > > avoided using BMC-side libraries where possible to avoid host-side > > tool poisoning. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM Brad Bishop > > > <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:03:17AM -0800, Patrick Venture wrote: > > > > >Brad, > > > > > > > > > >It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side > > > > >tools should be in the same repo, > > > > > > > > Is this something I said at some point? Where is this coming from? > > > > I don't have the exact email, and it might have been very very stale > > information. But I'm glad to clear this up! :D > > > > > > > > > > >hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash. > > > > >However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the > > > > >BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side. Would > > > > >it not make sense to sometimes have it split? And if so, I would like > > > > >to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash > > > > >tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything > > > > >in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like > > > > >ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something. > > > > > > > > I can make a repo if you would like. Just let me know what you would > > > > like it called. > > > > Thanks. I'm working on an IPMI blob toolset, such that there is a > > library that provides host-side blob tooling, and then the flash host > > toolset can link against that library and be used on the host. > > > > So that's my goal. To get there I was thinking, > > phosphor-ipmi-blobs-tool (or ipmi-blobs-lib) and > > phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool for that side. The argument against > > ipmi-blobs-lib is that there may end up being some basic tool there > > tool and not just the library -- do you have any preference in this > > case? > > Reviewing my goals further, the idea of having an ipmi-blobs-lib or > ipmi-blobslib repo would be helpful. I could do all the host-side > blob tooling there, and have that be a dependency of > phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool. Which leaves me with two repo requests: > > ipmi-blobslib > phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool > > You could add the phosphor prefix to the ipmi-blobslib if you wanted > for consistency since its' meant to work with and on the phosphor > environment. Brad + William, I was thinking about this more -- w.r.t the configure script, i could put the blobs host-side library portion into the phosphor-ipmi-blobs repo and have it build and install a library. And could use enable or disable to only check for things like phosphor-logging if it's being built for the BMC. I'm just not sure what the idiomatic approach is for that -- or maybe a build variable, like "build-host-library=yes" or something. Patrick > > > > > > I'm definitely seeking suggestions on this. > > > > > > > > > > That said, I think you can also probably do this in the same repo, if > > > > you wanted, by having different build targets - it might not make any > > > > sense to try and build both applications with a single invocation of > > > > configure - as you point out, they are being "configured" for vastly > > > > different runtime environments. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Host-side tools 2019-02-11 23:07 ` Patrick Venture 2019-02-12 17:11 ` Patrick Venture @ 2019-02-12 21:33 ` Vijay Khemka 2019-02-13 20:23 ` Patrick Venture 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Vijay Khemka @ 2019-02-12 21:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patrick Venture, William Kennington; +Cc: OpenBMC Maillist, Brad Bishop On 2/11/19, 3:08 PM, "openbmc on behalf of Patrick Venture" <openbmc-bounces+vijaykhemka=fb.com@lists.ozlabs.org on behalf of venture@google.com> wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:58 PM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:49 AM William Kennington <wak@google.com> wrote: > > > > As long as it's possible to build the host side tooling without > > building any of the BMC side tooling and vice versa it sounds fine to > > me. > > I've been doing a lot of host-side development lately and I was > interested to know what the end result would be. If someone ran the > configuration just to use the tool, they might run into issues. I've > avoided using BMC-side libraries where possible to avoid host-side > tool poisoning. > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM Brad Bishop > > <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:03:17AM -0800, Patrick Venture wrote: > > > >Brad, > > > > > > > >It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side > > > >tools should be in the same repo, > > > > > > Is this something I said at some point? Where is this coming from? > > I don't have the exact email, and it might have been very very stale > information. But I'm glad to clear this up! :D > > > > > > > >hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash. > > > >However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the > > > >BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side. Would > > > >it not make sense to sometimes have it split? And if so, I would like > > > >to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash > > > >tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything > > > >in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like > > > >ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something. > > > > > > I can make a repo if you would like. Just let me know what you would > > > like it called. > > Thanks. I'm working on an IPMI blob toolset, such that there is a > library that provides host-side blob tooling, and then the flash host > toolset can link against that library and be used on the host. > > So that's my goal. To get there I was thinking, > phosphor-ipmi-blobs-tool (or ipmi-blobs-lib) and > phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool for that side. The argument against > ipmi-blobs-lib is that there may end up being some basic tool there > tool and not just the library -- do you have any preference in this > case? Reviewing my goals further, the idea of having an ipmi-blobs-lib or ipmi-blobslib repo would be helpful. I could do all the host-side blob tooling there, and have that be a dependency of phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool. Which leaves me with two repo requests: ipmi-blobslib phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool Can we name as "phosphor-host-tools instead of calling ipmi-blob. As we can have similar tools repo for bmc and we can call it as phosphor-bmc-tools. All host related tools can be in one single repo and bmc tools can be in another single repo. You could add the phosphor prefix to the ipmi-blobslib if you wanted for consistency since its' meant to work with and on the phosphor environment. > > I'm definitely seeking suggestions on this. > > > > > > > That said, I think you can also probably do this in the same repo, if > > > you wanted, by having different build targets - it might not make any > > > sense to try and build both applications with a single invocation of > > > configure - as you point out, they are being "configured" for vastly > > > different runtime environments. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Host-side tools 2019-02-12 21:33 ` Vijay Khemka @ 2019-02-13 20:23 ` Patrick Venture 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Patrick Venture @ 2019-02-13 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vijay Khemka; +Cc: William Kennington, OpenBMC Maillist, Brad Bishop On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 1:33 PM Vijay Khemka <vijaykhemka@fb.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/11/19, 3:08 PM, "openbmc on behalf of Patrick Venture" <openbmc-bounces+vijaykhemka=fb.com@lists.ozlabs.org on behalf of venture@google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:58 PM Patrick Venture <venture@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:49 AM William Kennington <wak@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > As long as it's possible to build the host side tooling without > > > building any of the BMC side tooling and vice versa it sounds fine to > > > me. > > > > I've been doing a lot of host-side development lately and I was > > interested to know what the end result would be. If someone ran the > > configuration just to use the tool, they might run into issues. I've > > avoided using BMC-side libraries where possible to avoid host-side > > tool poisoning. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:51 AM Brad Bishop > > > <bradleyb@fuzziesquirrel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 08:03:17AM -0800, Patrick Venture wrote: > > > > >Brad, > > > > > > > > > >It's my understanding that host-side tools that cooperate with bmc-side > > > > >tools should be in the same repo, > > > > > > > > Is this something I said at some point? Where is this coming from? > > > > I don't have the exact email, and it might have been very very stale > > information. But I'm glad to clear this up! :D > > > > > > > > > > >hence why the host-side blobs stuff is in phosphor-ipmi-flash. > > > > >However, if I add any dependencies to the configuration for the > > > > >BMC-side, those get in the way of configuring for the host-side. Would > > > > >it not make sense to sometimes have it split? And if so, I would like > > > > >to propose creating two repos, a blobs library host-side, and a flash > > > > >tool host-side repo, so those can be neatly split and not have anything > > > > >in their configuration file that's really bmc-side specific, like > > > > >ipmid, or phosphor-dbus-interface, or something. > > > > > > > > I can make a repo if you would like. Just let me know what you would > > > > like it called. > > > > Thanks. I'm working on an IPMI blob toolset, such that there is a > > library that provides host-side blob tooling, and then the flash host > > toolset can link against that library and be used on the host. > > > > So that's my goal. To get there I was thinking, > > phosphor-ipmi-blobs-tool (or ipmi-blobs-lib) and > > phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool for that side. The argument against > > ipmi-blobs-lib is that there may end up being some basic tool there > > tool and not just the library -- do you have any preference in this > > case? > > Reviewing my goals further, the idea of having an ipmi-blobs-lib or > ipmi-blobslib repo would be helpful. I could do all the host-side > blob tooling there, and have that be a dependency of > phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool. Which leaves me with two repo requests: > > ipmi-blobslib > phosphor-ipmi-flash-tool > > Can we name as "phosphor-host-tools instead of calling ipmi-blob. > As we can have similar tools repo for bmc and we can call it as > phosphor-bmc-tools. All host related tools can be in one single > repo and bmc tools can be in another single repo. There's already a repo, iirc for some BMC tools. And, I don't know that storing arbitrary host-tools in the same repo is a plan I can support - unless they're all cpp built the same way, but really at that point it feels like if someone wanted to build their one tool it might be more steps? > > You could add the phosphor prefix to the ipmi-blobslib if you wanted > for consistency since its' meant to work with and on the phosphor > environment. > > > > > > I'm definitely seeking suggestions on this. > > > > > > > > > > That said, I think you can also probably do this in the same repo, if > > > > you wanted, by having different build targets - it might not make any > > > > sense to try and build both applications with a single invocation of > > > > configure - as you point out, they are being "configured" for vastly > > > > different runtime environments. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-02-13 20:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-02-11 16:03 Host-side tools Patrick Venture 2019-02-11 18:50 ` Brad Bishop 2019-02-11 19:48 ` William Kennington 2019-02-11 22:58 ` Patrick Venture 2019-02-11 23:07 ` Patrick Venture 2019-02-12 17:11 ` Patrick Venture 2019-02-12 21:33 ` Vijay Khemka 2019-02-13 20:23 ` Patrick Venture
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.