Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over KCS

["Konstantin Aladyshev" <aladyshev22@gmail.com>]

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.Chang@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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:57 PM
> > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; discuss@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.Chang@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.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io; discuss@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.Chang@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; aladyshev22@gmail.com
> > > > > > Cc: discuss@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.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: discuss@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.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 11:09 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: discuss@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.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please see my answers inline.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On
> > > > Behalf
> > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 1:54 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: discuss@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.Chang@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: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
> > On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 7:00 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: discuss <discuss@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 (#109175): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109175
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/100897530/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-