Please download libsmbios 0.10.0-beta1 and send the "dumpCmos" output
from your machine. Please send it to the libsmbios devel mailing list.
>From that output, I can tell you if this token is available on that
machine. If that token is available, then yes, you can set that feature.
libsmbios can
Please download libsmbios 0.10.0-beta1 and send the dumpCmos output
from your machine. Please send it to the libsmbios devel mailing list.
From that output, I can tell you if this token is available on that
machine. If that token is available, then yes, you can set that feature.
libsmbios can be
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 02:23 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 2) Dell OpenManage
> > The main use of this driver by openmanage will be to read the System
> > Event Log that BIOS keeps. Here are some other random relevant points:
>
> Are there machine check events
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 01:16 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:10:28PM -0500, Michael E Brown wrote:
> > To take a concrete example, I suggested to Doug to mention fan status. I
> > get the feeling that you possibly think that this would be better
> > inte
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 01:36 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:58:43 CDT, Michael E Brown said:
>
> > No, this is an _EXCELLENT_ reason why _LESS_ of this should be in the
> > kernel. Why should we have to duplicate a _TON_ of code inside the
> > ke
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 01:36 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:58:43 CDT, Michael E Brown said:
No, this is an _EXCELLENT_ reason why _LESS_ of this should be in the
kernel. Why should we have to duplicate a _TON_ of code inside the
kernel to figure out which platform
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 01:16 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:10:28PM -0500, Michael E Brown wrote:
To take a concrete example, I suggested to Doug to mention fan status. I
get the feeling that you possibly think that this would be better
integrated into lmsensors
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 02:23 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) Dell OpenManage
The main use of this driver by openmanage will be to read the System
Event Log that BIOS keeps. Here are some other random relevant points:
Are there machine check events from the last
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 22:35 -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 12:19:49AM -0500, Michael E Brown wrote:
>
> > Hmm... did I mention libsmbios? :-)
> > http://linux.dell.com/libsmbios/main.
>
> I'm aware of it --- it seems pretty limited right now an
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 01:17 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:09:28 CDT, you said:
>
> > No, dcdbas has nothing to do with this. I'll have to submit a patch
> > against the docs. The program you need to use already exists and is
> > open source. You can use libsmbios to do
Again, please cc Doug and I on replies...
Kyle Moffett wrote:
>On Aug 16, 2005, at 00:34:51, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 04:23:37PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>>> Why can't you just implement the system management actions in the
>>> kernel driver?
>>
>> Why put things in the
I am not subscribed to linux-kernel. Please cc me (and Doug) on all
replies. Sorry if I'm breaking peoples threading, but I am cut-and-
pasting this from web archives, since this wasn't cc-d to me
originally.
>On Aug 15, 2005, at 19:38:49, Doug Warzecha wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at
>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:38:49 CDT, Doug Warzecha said:
>
>> > If this is supposed to be used with the RBU code to trigger a BIOS
>> > update, ...
>>
>> This driver is not needed by the RBU code.
>
> Documentation/dell_rbu.txt says:
>
>> The rbu driver needs to have an application which will
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 21:29 -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2005, at 18:58:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Why can't you just implement the system management actions in
> >> the kernel driver? This is tantamount to a binary SMI hook to
> >> userspace. What functionality does this
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 21:29 -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Aug 15, 2005, at 18:58:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why can't you just implement the system management actions in
the kernel driver? This is tantamount to a binary SMI hook to
userspace. What functionality does this provide on a
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:38:49 CDT, Doug Warzecha said:
If this is supposed to be used with the RBU code to trigger a BIOS
update, ...
This driver is not needed by the RBU code.
Documentation/dell_rbu.txt says:
The rbu driver needs to have an application which will inform the BIOS to
I am not subscribed to linux-kernel. Please cc me (and Doug) on all
replies. Sorry if I'm breaking peoples threading, but I am cut-and-
pasting this from web archives, since this wasn't cc-d to me
originally.
On Aug 15, 2005, at 19:38:49, Doug Warzecha wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 04:23:37PM
Again, please cc Doug and I on replies...
Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Aug 16, 2005, at 00:34:51, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 04:23:37PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
Why can't you just implement the system management actions in the
kernel driver?
Why put things in the kernel unless
On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 01:17 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:09:28 CDT, you said:
No, dcdbas has nothing to do with this. I'll have to submit a patch
against the docs. The program you need to use already exists and is
open source. You can use libsmbios to do this.
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 22:35 -0700, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 12:19:49AM -0500, Michael E Brown wrote:
Hmm... did I mention libsmbios? :-)
http://linux.dell.com/libsmbios/main.
I'm aware of it --- it seems pretty limited right now and I'm still
irked Dell isn't more
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Maybe. I think that you'll find that these blocks are
> relative to the start of the partition, not relative
> to the start of the disk.
>
> So if you add a 1-block partition that contains the last
> sector of the disk, all should be fine.
>
Ok.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So if you add a 1-block partition that contains the last
> sector of the disk, all should be fine.
>
Oh! I didn't get your meaning before. I think I understand now. The
problem with this is that the tests for block writeability are not done on
a
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But it changes the idea of odd and even.
> A partition can start on an odd sector.
>
That is orthogonal to the issue that I am trying to solve with my patch.
My code is trying to make it possible to access sectors at the _end_ of
the disk that you
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, David Balazic wrote:
> Michael E Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) worte :
>
> > That has been tried. No, it does not work. :-) Using Scsi-Generic is the
> > only way so far found, but of course, it only works on SCSI drives.
>
> Did you try scsi-emulation
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, David Balazic wrote:
Michael E Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) worte :
That has been tried. No, it does not work. :-) Using Scsi-Generic is the
only way so far found, but of course, it only works on SCSI drives.
Did you try scsi-emulation on IDE disks ?
I think that scsi
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it changes the idea of odd and even.
A partition can start on an odd sector.
That is orthogonal to the issue that I am trying to solve with my patch.
My code is trying to make it possible to access sectors at the _end_ of
the disk that you
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if you add a 1-block partition that contains the last
sector of the disk, all should be fine.
Oh! I didn't get your meaning before. I think I understand now. The
problem with this is that the tests for block writeability are not done on
a
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe. I think that you'll find that these blocks are
relative to the start of the partition, not relative
to the start of the disk.
So if you add a 1-block partition that contains the last
sector of the disk, all should be fine.
Ok. Upon
Martin,
It looks like the numbers we picked for our respective IOCTLs conflict.
I think I can change mine to the next higher since your patch seems to
have been around longer. What is the general way to deal with these
conflicts?
--
Michael
On 13 Feb 2001, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> I have one additional user space only idea:
> have you tried raw-io? bind a raw device to the partition, IIRC raw-io
> is always in 512 byte units.
That has been tried. No, it does not work. :-) Using Scsi-Generic is the
only way so far found, but
Hi Andries!
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The block device uses 1K blocksize, and will prevent userspace from
> > seeing the odd-block at the end of the disk, if the disk is odd-size.
> >
> > IA-64 architecture defines a new partitioning scheme where there is a
> > backup
To address the concerns of Andi Kleen, with a good suggestion from Richard
Johnson, I have revised my previous patch attempt. Please check this out
and comment.
Changelog:
1) use get_gendisk() instead of walking array manually
2) pass in struct instead of guessing..
+ struct {
+
To address the concerns of Andi Kleen, with a good suggestion from Richard
Johnson, I have revised my previous patch attempt. Please check this out
and comment.
Changelog:
1) use get_gendisk() instead of walking array manually
2) pass in struct instead of guessing..
+ struct {
+
Hi Andries!
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The block device uses 1K blocksize, and will prevent userspace from
seeing the odd-block at the end of the disk, if the disk is odd-size.
IA-64 architecture defines a new partitioning scheme where there is a
backup of the
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:
I have one additional user space only idea:
have you tried raw-io? bind a raw device to the partition, IIRC raw-io
is always in 512 byte units.
That has been tried. No, it does not work. :-) Using Scsi-Generic is the
only way so far found, but of
Martin,
It looks like the numbers we picked for our respective IOCTLs conflict.
I think I can change mine to the next higher since your patch seems to
have been around longer. What is the general way to deal with these
conflicts?
--
Michael
On 13 Feb 2001, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
On 7 Feb 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
> But what happens when you e.g. run a software blocksize of 4096 and the device
> has >1 inaccessible 512 byte sector at the end?
> I think it would be better to pass in a offset in 512 byte units to a special
> ioctl (and do error checking in the driver for
On 7 Feb 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
But what happens when you e.g. run a software blocksize of 4096 and the device
has 1 inaccessible 512 byte sector at the end?
I think it would be better to pass in a offset in 512 byte units to a special
ioctl (and do error checking in the driver for
Problem Summary:
There is no function exported to userspace to read or write the last
512-byte sector of an odd-size disk.
The block device uses 1K blocksize, and will prevent userspace from
seeing the odd-block at the end of the disk, if the disk is odd-size.
IA-64 architecture defines
Problem Summary:
There is no function exported to userspace to read or write the last
512-byte sector of an odd-size disk.
The block device uses 1K blocksize, and will prevent userspace from
seeing the odd-block at the end of the disk, if the disk is odd-size.
IA-64 architecture defines
40 matches
Mail list logo
