On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Corey Minyard <minyard@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 03/25/2017 09:08 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:FWIW, this change is fine by me, so please feel free to route this
On 3/24/2017 10:55 PM, Corey Minyard wrote:
Why would a timeout for a message be expected? The BMC shouldLet me add some more context...
at least respond with an error for an incorrect message.
In this particular case, the FRU ID that I was trying to access was
correct.
Platform supports PCIe hotplug. The FRU is embedded into the HW that
is being removed. That's what I mean by non-existent.
When the device is ejected and a FRU command is executed, BMC times out
reaching to the FRU on the device.
When the device is inserted, everything works as expected.
I haven't added this yet. Someone who knows more about the ACPI side of
IPMI
should probably comment. So I've added Lv Zheng.
This is ok with me, though. If you remove a management controller, a
timeout is
expected. However, if the management controller is still present, a timeout
is
probably not the best error code, "destination unavailable" is probably a
better
choice.
So:
Acked-by: Corey Minyard <cminyard@xxxxxxxxxx>
-corey
through the IPMI tree along with the other patch from Sinan.
Thanks,
Rafael