[AMD Official Use Only - General] Hi Aladyshev, I have updated the change you made and put those code on below link, https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/commit/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111
I combined MCTP over KCS changes and IPMI over KCS functionality in KcsCommonLib.c. I also created MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_TRAILER as you suggested. The source EID and destination EID are checked in MctpSubmitCommand as well. IPMI/KCS functionality is verified and works fine after this change. As I am no able to use the corresponding change you made on OpenBMC site at my end, could you please help to verify my updates on your machine? Let's see how it works. I also consider to migrate the code that generates MCTP over KCS header/trailer from MctpProtocolCommon.c to KcsCommonLib.c, maybe after we verifying PLDM->MCTP->KCS route works well on ManageabilityPkg. Thank you Abner > -----Original Message----- > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshe...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 AM > To: Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; disc...@edk2.groups.io > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over KCS > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > Hi, Chang! > > Did you have time to test libmctp MCTP KCS binding solution? > > Here are some updates from my end. As I was saying, I was working on > the Linux kernel binding solution. > And now I've finished the initial implementation of the Linux kernel > binding driver for the MCTP-over-KCS binding and proposed all the > patches upstream > (https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4949173.html). > I've also updated instructions in my repo > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM (the guide for the kernel binding > solution and all the necessary Linux kernel patches can be found here > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel). > So now you can use Linux driver instead of the libmctp utility on the BMC > side. > > Couple of things that I've noticed in the development process: > - `MctpSubmitCommand` receives > 'MctpSourceEndpointId'/'MctpDestinationEndpointId' as arguments. But > these values aren't actually used. The current code just uses EIDs > that were set via PCDs > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > platforms/blob/d03a60523a6086d200d3eb1e2f25530bf1cb790e/Features/ > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon. > c#L178) > - According to the specification DSP0236 (section 8.2) MCTP EID 0 to 7 > are reserved. It is critical that we do not use them since MCTP Linux > kernel subsystem checks that part. So we probably need to add some > check to the `MctpSubmitCommand` that would verify that we don't use > reserved EIDs. > > Best regards, > Konstantin Aladyshev > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 5:32 AM Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > wrote: > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > Hi Aladyshev, > > Thanks for providing the details, I will take a look at your code first, > implement it at my end and then response to your question. > > > > Abner > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshe...@gmail.com> > > > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:57 PM > > > To: Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; disc...@edk2.groups.io > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over > KCS > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper > caution > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > > > > > > > Hi, Chang! > > > > > > I've finished my initial implementation of the MCTP over KCS binding. > > > You can find 'edk2-platform' patches and 'openbmc' patches along with > > > all of the instructions in my repository > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM. I hope you'll be able to reproduce > > > everything on your hardware configuration. Feel free to ask any > > > questions. > > > Also I've sent all the openbmc patches upstream, hope they will get > > > accepted soon. > > > As for the 'edk2-platform' patches, right now I don't fully understand > > > how to write them correctly to keep IPMI over KCS stack working. I > > > think here I would need your help. Right now I've commited them to my > > > `edk2-platforms` fork > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > platforms/commit/99a6c98a63b37f955c0d0480149b84fcc3a03f74 > > > > > > Couple of questions/notices: > > > 1) You've said that we can differentiate MCTP by the transfer token, > > > but it is not passed to the 'KcsTransportSendCommand' function > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > platforms/blob/bb6841e3fd1c60b3f8510b4fc0a380784e05d326/Features/ > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/Common/KcsComm > > > on.c#L414 > > > > > > 2) What function should know about the > > > MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_HEADER? > > > Keep in mind that this header includes 'ByteCount' for the incoming > > > data size that we need to read. > > > - KcsTransportSendCommand or CommonMctpSubmitMessage ? > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > platforms/blob/master/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTra > > > nsportKcsLib/Common/KcsCommon.c) > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > platforms/blob/master/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/ > > > Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c)? > > > > > > 3) As I've said earlier I think it would be good to add > > > MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_TRAILER to the Mctp.h > > > > > > 4) Not sure if it is a good idea to pass these parameters to the > > > MctpSubmitCommand protocol function: > > > ``` > > > UINT8 MctpType, > > > BOOLEAN RequestDataIntegrityCheck, > > > ``` > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > platforms/blob/master/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/MctpPr > > > otocol.h) > > > Shouldn't it be in the `RequestData` directly since it is more of a > > > payload than a header for the MCTP? I don't know the specification > > > very well, but what if the RequestDataIntegrityCheck would be set in > > > the response? Who would need to check the integrity of the payload > > > buffer in that case? MCTP library or the code calling the MCTP > > > library? > > > > > > 5) Haven't tested the PldmProtocol, maybe it also needs some corrections. > > > > > > Feel free to ask any questions about my solution. > > > > > > Right now I'll probably focus on the Linux kernel driver for the MCTP > > > over KCS binding. So if you want to finish edk2-platforms code based > > > on my patches, feel free to do it. If not, I'll try to get back to it > > > after I finish the Linux kernel driver. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Konstantin Aladyshev > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > > > > > See my answer below, > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 12:02 AM > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; disc...@edk2.groups.io > > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP > over > > > KCS > > > > > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper > > > caution > > > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I've said there is nothing like "KCS completion code" in the MCTP > > > > > over KCS binding specification > > > > > > > > > (https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP0254_1 > > > > > .0.0.pdf). > > > > > The response packet should have the same structure as a request. I.e. > > > > > a packet with MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_HEADER and PEC. > > > > > > > > > > Currently I'm writing "MCTP over KCS" binding for the OpenBMC > libmctp > > > > > project. So I can send whatever I want, I don't think my output would > > > > > be any useful to you. But I've asked this question in the community > > > > > and they also confirmed that the response packet has the same > > > > > structure. > > > > > > > > > (https://discord.com/channels/775381525260664832/7787906385638850 > > > > > 86/1146782595334549554) > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm a little bit confused about the `KcsTransportSendCommand` > > > > > function. It has the following arguments for the function output: > > > > > ``` > > > > > OUT UINT8 *ResponseData > > > > > OPTIONAL, > > > > > IN OUT UINT32 *ResponseDataSize > > > > > OPTIONAL > > > > > ``` > > > > > Should we include > MCTP_TRANSPORT_HEADER/MCTP_MESSAGE_HEADER > > > to > > > > > this > > > > > output or not? > > > > If the MCTP KCS packet for host->BMC and BMC->host are in the same > > > structure, then yes, the response data from BMC should includes > > > MCTP_TRANSPORT_HEADER/MCTP_MESSAGE_HEADER in my opinion, as > this > > > is defined in MCTP base protocol. > > > > > > > > So let me explain the implementation for MCTP over KCS and what do we > > > miss now. > > > > > > > > A. MCTP protocol driver linked with KCS Transport interface library > > > > - In MCTP protocol driver, if the transport interface is KCS then > > > > 1. MCTP protocol driver builds up the MCTP KCS transport header, > which > > > is DefBody, NetFunc and ByeCount > > > > 2. MCTP protocol driver builds up the MCTP payload > > > > 3. MCTP protocol driver builds up the MCTP KCS transport trailer, > which > > > is PEC. > > > > Above three steps are already implemented. > > > > PEC is calculated by MCTP protocol driver and should be verified > > > > by > KCS > > > using the same algorithm in my understanding of spec. > > > > > > > > B. In KCS Transport interface library > > > > 1. KCS Transport interface library sends the transport header got > > > > from > > > TransportToken. Same behavior for IPMI protocol, but different content. > KCS > > > Transport interface library doesn't have to understand this. > > > > 2. KCS Transport interface library sends the payload > > > > 3. KCS Transport interface library sends the transport trailer > > > > got from > > > TransportToken. Same behavior for IPMI protocol, but different content. > KCS > > > Transport interface library doesn't have to understand this. > > > > Above three steps are already implemented. > > > > > > > > Then, if Manageability protocol is MCTP, we skip reading > > > > responses > > > header (Not implemented) > > > > For reading response data > > > > 1. If the ResponseData and ResponseSize is valid in the given > > > TransportToken, then we read ResponseSize data from KCS. (Already > > > implemented) > > > > 2. if Manageability protocol is MCTP, then we skip reading > > > > responses > > > header again (Not implemented) > > > > Now the response is returned to MCTP protocol driver > > > > > > > > C. In MCTP protocol driver, we expect to get the whole MCTP over KCS > > > packet response, that includes DefBody, NetFunc and ByeCount, MCTP > > > message and PEC. > > > > 1. MCTP protocol driver verifies the returned PEC with the > > > > payload. > > > > 2. Strip out DefBody, NetFunc, ByeCount and PEC and then > > > > returns it > to > > > upper layer (e.g., MCTP transport interface library). Returns only MCTP > > > Transport header and MCTP packet payload as it shows in MCTP base > protocol > > > spec. > > > > Above is not implemented > > > > > > > > D. In MCTP transport interface library, we can strip out MCTP transport > > > header and then return it to upper layer (e.g., PLDM protocol driver). > > > > Above is not implemented. > > > > > > > > E. In PLDM protocol driver, > > > > 1. we verify the Message Integrity Check if the Message Type > requests it. > > > > 2. we can remove MCTP message type then return it to upper layer > (e.g., > > > PLDM SMBIOS transfer) > > > > Above is not implemented. > > > > > > > > We didn’t implement BMC->Host in step C, D and E as our current > demand is > > > to send the SMBIOS table to BMC, which doesn't require the response data > if I > > > am not wrong. > > > > Let me know if it is problematic in the above process. > > > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > Abner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:52 PM Chang, Abner > > > <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > > > > > > > > > But wait, wee my another comment below, > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Chang, Abner > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:42 PM > > > > > > > To: devel@edk2.groups.io; aladyshe...@gmail.com > > > > > > > Cc: disc...@edk2.groups.io > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP > > > over > > > > > KCS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf > Of > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 10:57 PM > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > > > > > > Cc: disc...@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via > MCTP > > > over > > > > > KCS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use > proper > > > > > > > caution > > > > > > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (I don see what is the response header for MCTP KCS in spec > though, > > > > > does > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > mention the KCS response?). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The spec doesn't explicitly mention that the format of a send > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > response packets differ. So I assume it is the same and it is > > > > > > > > described at the "Figure 1 – MCTP over KCS Packet Format" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP0254_1 > > > > > > > > .0.0.pdf) > > > > > > > > Therefore the format of a response would look like this: > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_HEADER > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/blob/master/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/Managea > > > > > > > > bilityTransportMctpLib.h) > > > > > > > > MCTP_TRANSPORT_HEADER > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Include/Industry > > > > > > > > Standard/Mctp.h) > > > > > > > > MCTP_MESSAGE_HEADER > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Include/Industry > > > > > > > > Standard/Mctp.h) > > > > > > > > < response data> > > > > > > > What do you see the KCS response from BMC? You probably right as > > > the > > > > > > > header and trailer are labeled in different colors 😊. Could you > please > > > > > enable > > > > > > > the debug message to capture it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PEC > > > > > > > > (Probably we need to define > > > > > MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_TRAILER) > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > We have MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_HEADER defined but no > > > > > > > MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_TRAILER as it is hardcoded to one > byte. > > > > > > > If the KCS response is PEC, then yes, we can create > > > > > > > MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_TRAILER for KCS transport interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > In the implementation, PEC is calculated in MCTP protocol and send > > > through > > > > > KCS as the KCS packet trailer. So, when we send the MCTP request > through > > > > > KCS, KCS shouldn't respond the PEC to upper stack, right? I still > > > > > think > the > > > > > response should be the KCS completion code. The debug message from > > > your > > > > > end may help to clarify this as your BMC has the MCTP KCS > > > implementation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Abner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So in the "KcsTransportSendCommand" > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/blob/14553d31c72afa7289f6a2555b6e91f4f715a05a/Features/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/Common/KcsComm > > > > > > > > on.c#L414) > > > > > > > > we can check if we transfer is MCTP (based on > > > > > > > > "TransportToken->ManagebilityProtocolSpecification == MCTP" like > > > > > > > > you've suggested) and handle response accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But which headers should we check in this function? Only > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_HEADER/MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_TRAILER > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > Yes, only check header and trailer for transport interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What about > > > MCTP_TRANSPORT_HEADER/MCTP_MESSAGE_HEADER? > > > > > Do > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > need to > > > > > > > > check them here as well? Or do we need to check them > somewhere > > > > > upper > > > > > > > > the call stack? > > > > > > > We should leave this to MCTP protocol driver as this is belong to > > > protocol > > > > > > > layer, the upper layer stack. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Abner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 7:59 AM Chang, Abner > > > > > <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshe...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 11:09 PM > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: disc...@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over KCS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. > > > > > > > > > > Use > > > proper > > > > > > > > caution > > > > > > > > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've started to implement MCTP over KCS binding for the > libmctp > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/openbmc/libmctp) and test it with the > > > current > > > > > code > > > > > > > > > > in the ManageabilityPkg. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was able successfully send the MCTP packet to the BMC, but > right > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > > I'm having some troubles with receiving the answer back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I've found some bug in the > `KcsTransportSendCommand` > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After it sends data over KCS in expects a responce starting > > > > > > > > > > with > a > > > > > > > > > > 'IPMI_KCS_RESPONSE_HEADER' > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/blob/14553d31c72afa7289f6a2555b6e91f4f715a05a/Features/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/Common/KcsComm > > > > > > > > > > on.c#L476 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't it wrong, assuming that the right header in case of > > > > > > > > > > MCTP > > > should > > > > > > > > > > be 'MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_HEADER' ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the 'IpmiHelperCheckCompletionCode' check after the > data > > > > > > > > > > receive is also not relevant for the MCTP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is something I don’t really sure as I can't verify the > > > > > > > > > response > > > > > payload > > > > > > > > because our BMC doesn't have the code to handle MCTP over KCS > > > > > > > command. > > > > > > > > However it is appreciated if community can help to verify this. > > > > > > > > As I > can > > > > > > > > remember, I can see the return KCS status is 0xC1, the invalid > > > command. > > > > > > > Thus I > > > > > > > > think if we do a MCTP over KCS, the first response is still KCS > response > > > > > > > header. > > > > > > > > > This is not what do you see on the BCM it does support MCTP > over > > > > > KCS? If > > > > > > > > so, then I would like to have your help to correct this code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since 'ManageabilityTransportKcsLib' can be used both for > > > > > > > > > > IPMI > > > and > > > > > > > > > > MCTP, how should we deal with this? > > > > > > > > > If KcsCommon.c, we can have different code path for the given > > > protocol > > > > > > > > GUID. e.g., if > > > > > > > > (TransportToken->ManagebilityProtocolSpecification > == > > > > > MCTP). > > > > > > > > > Then skip reading the KCS_REPOSNSE_HEADER or to read the > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESPONSE_HEADER (I don see what is the response header > for > > > > > MCTP > > > > > > > > KCS in spec though, does it mention the KCS response?). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Abner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 5:18 AM Chang, Abner > > > > > > > > <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see my answers inline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > From: disc...@edk2.groups.io <disc...@edk2.groups.io> > On > > > > > Behalf > > > > > > > Of > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 1:54 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: disc...@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over > KCS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External > > > > > > > > > > > > Source. > Use > > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > caution > > > > > > > > > > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the answer! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was a little bit confused about the part, that in the > > > > > > > > > > > > same > > > package > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > > > actually need to provide different library > > > > > > > > > > > > implementations > for > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > same 'ManageabilityTransportLib', thanks for the > clarification! > > > > > > > > > > > > I think your DSC example should go into the package > > > > > documentation. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is a good idea. I will update it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for me, I'm working with the OpenBMC distribution > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/openbmc/openbmc) and my goal is to > > > > > transfer > > > > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > > > > from the BIOS to the BMC via MCTP/PLDM. > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently there is no solution for the MCTP over KCS > > > > > > > > > > > > binding > in > > > > > Linux, > > > > > > > > > > > > so I need to add this support: > > > > > > > > > > > > - either to the MCTP userspace library > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/openbmc/libmctp) [old OpenBMC > way, > > > but > > > > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > > > > > easier] > > > > > > > > > > > > - or to the MCTP kernel binding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/drivers/net/mctp) > > > > > > > > > > > > [modern mctp Linux driver approach] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both don't sound like an easy task, so can I ask, what > > > > > > > > > > > > MC > (i.e. > > > > > > > > > > > > management controller) device and firmware do you use on > > > the > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > side of the MCTP KCS transmissions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We use OpenBMC as well, but as you mention there are some > > > > > missing > > > > > > > > pieces > > > > > > > > > > to fully support manageability between host and BMC. > > > > > > > > > > > We don’t have code to handle MCTP IPMI either, the edk2 > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg > > > > > > > > > > provides the framework while MCTP/PLDM/KCS > implementation > > > > > > > provides > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > sample other than IPMI/KCS to prove the flexibility of > > > > > ManageabilityPkg. > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, MCTP over KCS is not supported in our BMC > firmware > > > yet, > > > > > > > thus > > > > > > > > > > BMC just returns the invalid command. However, the transport > > > > > > > framework > > > > > > > > > > has been verified to make sure the implementation works fine > as > > > > > expect. > > > > > > > > > > > We need help from community to provide more > manageability > > > > > > > protocols > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > transport interface libraries to this package. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You've also mentioned PLDM SMBIOS, isn't it covered by > the > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/blob/master/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTr > > > > > > > > > > > > ansferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > Ah hah, yes I forget I upstream it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please just feel free to send patch to make more > functionalities to > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > package. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > Abner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 7:26 PM Chang, Abner > > > > > > > > > > <abner.ch...@amd.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev, > > > > > > > > > > > > > We use library class to specify the desire transport > interface > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > management protocol, such as MCTP, PLDM and IPMI. This > > > way > > > > > we > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > flexibly support any transport interface for the > > > > > > > > > > > > management > > > > > protocol. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the example of using ManageabilityPkg, which > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > PLDM > > > > > over > > > > > > > > MCTP > > > > > > > > > > > > over KCS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/IpmiProtocol/Dxe/IpmiProtocolDxe.inf > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > <LibraryClasses> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityTransportLib|ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTranspor > > > > > > > > > > > > tKcsLib/Dxe/DxeManageabilityTransportKcs.inf > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocolDxe.inf > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > <LibraryClasses> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityTransportLib|ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTranspor > > > > > > > > > > > > tKcsLib/Dxe/DxeManageabilityTransportKcs.inf > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Dxe/PldmProtocolDxe.inf > > > { > > > > > > > > > > > > > <LibraryClasses> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityTransportLib|ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTranspor > > > > > > > > > > > > tMctpLib/Dxe/DxeManageabilityTransportMctp.inf > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you can implement ManageabilityTransport library > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > either > > > > > > > > industry > > > > > > > > > > > > standard or proprietary implementation for the specific > > > > > management > > > > > > > > > > > > protocol. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, We do have PLDM SMBIOS over MCTP > implementation > > > but > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > upstream yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope this information helps. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: disc...@edk2.groups.io > <disc...@edk2.groups.io> > > > On > > > > > > > > Behalf Of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 7:00 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: discuss <disc...@edk2.groups.io>; > > > devel@edk2.groups.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over > KCS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External > Source. > > > Use > > > > > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > > > caution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > responding. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm trying to build `ManageabilityPkg` from the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edk2- > > > platforms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > repo to issue PLDM messages via MCTP over KCS. Is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > possible > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the current code? I see all the building blocks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but have > > > trouble > > > > > > > > > > > > > > putting it all together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main question that bothers me is what > implementation > > > > > should > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > set > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the `ManageabilityTransportLib`? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By default it is set to dummy > > > > > `BaseManageabilityTransportNull.inf` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/blob/master/Features/ManageabilityPkg/ManageabilityPkg.dsc). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On one case to get PLDM via MCTP it looks that I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to > set > > > it > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `DxeManageabilityTransportMctp.inf` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityTransportLib| > > > > > > > > <...>/DxeManageabilityTransportMctp.inf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/blob/master/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nsportMctpLib/Dxe/DxeManageabilityTransportMctp.inf) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But on the other case if I want MCTP over KCS I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to > set > > > it to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `DxeManageabilityTransportKcs.inf` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityTransportLib| > > > > > > > <...>/DxeManageabilityTransportKcs.inf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/tianocore/edk2- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/blob/master/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nsportKcsLib/Dxe/DxeManageabilityTransportKcs.inf) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the right way to resolve this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are no platforms in the repo that actually > implement > > > > > > > > PLDM/MCTP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functionality, so there is no example that I can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use as a > > > > > reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#109315): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109315 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/100897530/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
