Re: [Freeipmi-devel] the new ipmi_kcs_io_init API

[Albert Chu]

Ian,

I think that's a good point.  But at the same time, probing may not
always work.  Perhaps two different init functions and our code can call
each one appropriately? i.e.

if (ipmi_probe(&probe_data) < 0)
   ipmi_kcs_io_init(default_port, default_reg_space);
else
   ipmi_kcs_io_probe_init(&probe_data);

Al

--
Albert Chu
address@hidden
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Zimmerman <address@hidden>
Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2004 9:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Freeipmi-devel] the new ipmi_kcs_io_init API

> 
> ab> ipmi_probe (ipmi_interface_kcs, &probeinfo, &status); if 
> (status ==
> ab> 0 && !probeinfo.bmc_io_mapped)
> ab> ipmi_kcs_io_init(probeinfo.base.bmc_iobase_addr,
> ab> probeinfo.reg_space, IPMI_KCS_SLEEP_USECS))
> 
> I still think it's cleaner to pass a pointer to the entire probeinfo
> structure.  What if there is another piece of config information
> we need from probing someday?
> 
> -- 
> "It's not true or not."  A reality show producer (real quote)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freeipmi-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/freeipmi-devel
>