[edk2-devel] PLDM messages via MCTP over KCS

[edk2-devel] PLDM messages via MCTP over KCS

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

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/ManageabilityTransportMctpLib/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/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/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 (#107950): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107950
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/100891597/7686176
Group Owner: devel+owner@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [rebecca@openfw.io]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[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/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/Dxe/DxeManageabilityTransportKcs.inf
  }
  ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocolDxe.inf {
    <LibraryClasses>
      ManageabilityTransportLib|ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/Dxe/DxeManageabilityTransportKcs.inf
  }
  ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Dxe/PldmProtocolDxe.inf {
    <LibraryClasses>
      ManageabilityTransportLib|ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTransportMctpLib/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 (#107952): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107952
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

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.

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?

You've also mentioned PLDM SMBIOS, isn't it covered by the
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/master/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c
?


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/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/Dxe/DxeManageabilityTransportKcs.inf
>   }
>   ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocolDxe.inf {
>     <LibraryClasses>
>       ManageabilityTransportLib|ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/Dxe/DxeManageabilityTransportKcs.inf
>   }
>   ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Dxe/PldmProtocolDxe.inf {
>     <LibraryClasses>
>       ManageabilityTransportLib|ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTransportMctpLib/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 (#107957): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107957
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[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 (#107969): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/107969
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

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/KcsCommon.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.

Since 'ManageabilityTransportKcsLib' can be used both for IPMI and
MCTP, how should we deal with this?

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 (#108147): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108147
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[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 (#108184): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108184
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

> (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/ManageabilityTransportMctpLib.h)
MCTP_TRANSPORT_HEADER
(https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Mctp.h)
MCTP_MESSAGE_HEADER
(https://github.com/tianocore/edk2/blob/master/MdePkg/Include/IndustryStandard/Mctp.h)
< response data>
PEC
           (Probably we need to define MANAGEABILITY_MCTP_KCS_TRAILER)
```

So in the "KcsTransportSendCommand"
(https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/14553d31c72afa7289f6a2555b6e91f4f715a05a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Library/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/Common/KcsCommon.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 ?
 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?

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 (#108191): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108191
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> -----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.

>
> 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 (#108192): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108192
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[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 (#108194): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108194
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

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/775381525260664832/778790638563885086/1146782595334549554)

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?

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 (#108196): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108196
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[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 (#108226): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108226
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

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/KcsCommon.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/ManageabilityTransportKcsLib/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/MctpProtocol.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 (#108445): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108445
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[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 (#108932): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/108932
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

Hi Aladyshev,
Yes, this is my next task starts from next week.

Thanks
Abner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
>
>
> 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 (#109185): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109185
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
>
>
> 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 (#109315): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109315
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

Hi Chang!

Thanks!
There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
fixed them everything seems to work fine!
Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
driver approach
(https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
The latest kernel patches can be found here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-aladyshev22@gmail.com/

Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
```
diff --git a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
--- a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
+++ b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (

     //
     // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
-    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
(MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
+    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
(MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
     *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
     *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
     *PacketTrailer     = (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
diff --git a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
--- a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
+++ b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
@@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
   }

   //
-  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
+  // Check source EID and destination EID
   //
   if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
-       MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
+      (MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
       ) {
     DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x) is
reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
     return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
   }

   if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
-       MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
+      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
       ) {
     DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID (%x)
is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
     return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
```

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
>
> [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> >
> >
> > 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 (#109325): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109325
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 40133 bytes --]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep working on other problems based on it.?
Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.

I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on openBMC?

Thanks
Abner

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>; discuss@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!

Thanks!
There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
fixed them everything seems to work fine!
Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
driver approach
(https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
The latest kernel patches can be found here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-aladyshev22@gmail.com/

Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
```
diff --git a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
--- a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
+++ b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (

     //
     // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
-    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
(MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
+    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
(MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
     *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
     *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
     *PacketTrailer     = (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
diff --git a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
--- a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
+++ b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
@@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
   }

   //
-  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
+  // Check source EID and destination EID
   //
   if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
-       MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
+      (MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
       ) {
     DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x) is
reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
     return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
   }

   if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
-       MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
+      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
       ) {
     DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID (%x)
is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
     return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
```

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
>
> [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> >
> >
> > 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 (#109327): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109327
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 67654 bytes --]

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

> That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.

I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
syntax errors.
I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
directly.

> How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep working on other problems based on it.?
> Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.

No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
protocols work correctly.

Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c#L178
What can we do about that?

> Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on openBMC?

So as I've described in the https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
(1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
(2) kernel approach

It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody really
cares about (1).

For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've helped to
develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly ready:
66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652

For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver upstream.
Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not sure
how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the work
and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem creator
we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So this
can take some time.
After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked up
by the openbmc/linux automatically.

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
>
> That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep working on other problems based on it.?
> Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
>
> I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on openBMC?
>
> Thanks
> Abner
>
> Get Outlook for Android
>
> ________________________________
> From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>; discuss@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!
>
> Thanks!
> There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
> driver approach
> (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-aladyshev22@gmail.com/
>
> Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> ```
> diff --git a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
> index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> --- a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
> +++ b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c
> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
>
>      //
>      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
>      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
>      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
>      *PacketTrailer     = (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> diff --git a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> --- a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> +++ b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
>    }
>
>    //
> -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> +  // Check source EID and destination EID
>    //
>    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> -       MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
>        ) {
>      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x) is
> reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
>      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>    }
>
>    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
>        ) {
>      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID (%x)
> is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
>      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> ```
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 (#109329): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109329
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
> Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
>
>
> > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
>
> I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> syntax errors.
> I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> directly.

Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and MCTP EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new KbcCommonLib.c. Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.

>
> > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> working on other problems based on it.?
> > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
>
> No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> protocols work correctly.
Ok.

>
> Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
> 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> c#L178
> What can we do about that?
Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here: https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your code here: https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
And we also need the fix the typo on edk2, https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE

>
> > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on
> openBMC?
>
> So as I've described in the https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
> (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> (2) kernel approach
>
> It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody really
> cares about (1).
>
> For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've helped to
> develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
> when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly ready:
> 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
>
> For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver upstream.
> Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not sure
> how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the work
> and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
> regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem creator
> we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So this
> can take some time.
> After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked up
> by the openbmc/linux automatically.
Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.

Regards,
Abner

>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> >
> > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> working on other problems based on it.?
> > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> >
> > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I would take
> to merge your changes on openBMC?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Abner
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> discuss@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!
> >
> > Thanks!
> > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
> > driver approach
> > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> >
> > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > ```
> > diff --git
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> olCommon.c
> >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> colCommon.c
> > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > ---
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> olCommon.c
> > +++
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> colCommon.c
> > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> >
> >      //
> >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> >      *PacketTrailer     =
> (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > diff --git
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > ---
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > +++
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> >    }
> >
> >    //
> > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> >    //
> >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> >        ) {
> >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x) is
> > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> >    }
> >
> >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> >        ) {
> >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID (%x)
> > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > ```
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Aladyshev
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 (#109339): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109339
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or maybe
add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further PLDM
communication?
Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no flexibility
https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L121

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
> > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> >
> >
> > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> >
> > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > syntax errors.
> > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > directly.
>
> Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and MCTP EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new KbcCommonLib.c. Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
>
> >
> > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> >
> > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > protocols work correctly.
> Ok.
>
> >
> > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
> > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > c#L178
> > What can we do about that?
> Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here: https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your code here: https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> And we also need the fix the typo on edk2, https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
>
> >
> > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on
> > openBMC?
> >
> > So as I've described in the https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
> > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > (2) kernel approach
> >
> > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody really
> > cares about (1).
> >
> > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've helped to
> > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
> > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly ready:
> > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> >
> > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver upstream.
> > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not sure
> > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the work
> > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
> > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem creator
> > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So this
> > can take some time.
> > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked up
> > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
>
> Regards,
> Abner
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Aladyshev
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > >
> > >
> > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > >
> > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I would take
> > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Abner
> > >
> > > Get Outlook for Android
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > discuss@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!
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
> > > driver approach
> > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > >
> > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > ```
> > > diff --git
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > olCommon.c
> > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > colCommon.c
> > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > ---
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > olCommon.c
> > > +++
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > colCommon.c
> > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> > >
> > >      //
> > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > diff --git
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > ---
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > +++
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    //
> > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > >    //
> > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > >        ) {
> > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x) is
> > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > >    }
> > >
> > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > >        ) {
> > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID (%x)
> > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 (#109347): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109347
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L24

I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to know the
MCTP response size apriori.
This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L261

This means that right now I can't execute my simple 'GetPLDMTypes'
command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
<aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or maybe
> add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further PLDM
> communication?
> Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no flexibility
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L121
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> > >
> > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > syntax errors.
> > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > directly.
> >
> > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and MCTP EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new KbcCommonLib.c. Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> >
> > >
> > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > >
> > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > protocols work correctly.
> > Ok.
> >
> > >
> > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
> > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > c#L178
> > > What can we do about that?
> > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here: https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your code here: https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2, https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> >
> > >
> > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on
> > > openBMC?
> > >
> > > So as I've described in the https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
> > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > (2) kernel approach
> > >
> > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody really
> > > cares about (1).
> > >
> > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've helped to
> > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
> > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly ready:
> > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > >
> > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver upstream.
> > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not sure
> > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the work
> > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
> > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem creator
> > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So this
> > > can take some time.
> > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked up
> > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Abner
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I would take
> > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Abner
> > > >
> > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > discuss@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!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
> > > > driver approach
> > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > >
> > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > ```
> > > > diff --git
> > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > olCommon.c
> > > >
> > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > colCommon.c
> > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > ---
> > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > olCommon.c
> > > > +++
> > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > colCommon.c
> > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> > > >
> > > >      //
> > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > diff --git
> > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > ---
> > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > +++
> > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > >    }
> > > >
> > > >    //
> > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > >    //
> > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > >        ) {
> > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x) is
> > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > >    }
> > > >
> > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > >        ) {
> > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID (%x)
> > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 (#109352): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109352
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would be
to move these checks to the EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL code
(i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)

Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such information
as expected response sizes for its commands.

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
<aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
> expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L24
>
> I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to know the
> MCTP response size apriori.
> This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L261
>
> This means that right now I can't execute my simple 'GetPLDMTypes'
> command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or maybe
> > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further PLDM
> > communication?
> > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no flexibility
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L121
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Aladyshev
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> > > >
> > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > > syntax errors.
> > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > directly.
> > >
> > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and MCTP EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new KbcCommonLib.c. Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > Ok.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
> > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > c#L178
> > > > What can we do about that?
> > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here: https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your code here: https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2, https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on
> > > > openBMC?
> > > >
> > > > So as I've described in the https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
> > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > >
> > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody really
> > > > cares about (1).
> > > >
> > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've helped to
> > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
> > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly ready:
> > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > >
> > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver upstream.
> > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not sure
> > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the work
> > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
> > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem creator
> > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So this
> > > > can take some time.
> > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked up
> > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Abner
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I would take
> > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Abner
> > > > >
> > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > discuss@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!
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
> > > > > driver approach
> > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > ```
> > > > > diff --git
> > > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > olCommon.c
> > > > >
> > > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > ---
> > > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > +++
> > > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> > > > >
> > > > >      //
> > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > diff --git
> > > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > ---
> > > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > +++
> > > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > >    }
> > > > >
> > > > >    //
> > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > >    //
> > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > >        ) {
> > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x) is
> > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > >    }
> > > > >
> > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > >        ) {
> > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID (%x)
> > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 (#109353): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109353
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more observation.

I think the MCTP code should set specific 'AdditionalTransferError'
for the caller when it fails on each of the response header checks:
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.c#L464

But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be utilized for
this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP protocols
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the protocol specific
errors? What do you think?

Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in the PLDM
protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting additional error
information to the user?

I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks with some
things that I've found today.
https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
<aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would be
> to move these checks to the EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL code
> (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
>
> Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such information
> as expected response sizes for its commands.
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
> > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L24
> >
> > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to know the
> > MCTP response size apriori.
> > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L261
> >
> > This means that right now I can't execute my simple 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Aladyshev
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or maybe
> > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further PLDM
> > > communication?
> > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no flexibility
> > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.c#L121
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > directly.
> > > >
> > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and MCTP EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new KbcCommonLib.c. Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > Ok.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
> > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > c#L178
> > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here: https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your code here: https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2, https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on
> > > > > openBMC?
> > > > >
> > > > > So as I've described in the https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
> > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > >
> > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody really
> > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > >
> > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've helped to
> > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
> > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly ready:
> > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > >
> > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver upstream.
> > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not sure
> > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the work
> > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
> > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem creator
> > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So this
> > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked up
> > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Abner
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your end.
> > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and keep
> > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and I'm the
> > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I would take
> > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Abner
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
> > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > +++
> > > > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> > > > > >
> > > > > >      //
> > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > +++
> > > > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > >    }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    //
> > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > >    //
> > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x) is
> > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > >    }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <= MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID (%x)
> > > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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 (#109358): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109358
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

Hi Aladyshev,
Here is my response,

1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like to have the input parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use pointers for the given SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is NULL.

2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array ofexpected response sizes.
The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS, it doesn't have to handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care about the response data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define the PLDM response size for any PLDM spec.
As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a fixe size. I think we can remove the array and just adjust the response size in PLDM Protocol driver.

3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to accommodate error codes for the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much implementation of 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs more practices to make it more mature.
I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError' using the most significant byte, for example
0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
0x80 - KCS transport error
0x81 - MCTP
...
0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
...

How do you think?
Thanks
Abner


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
>
>
> Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more observation.
>
> I think the MCTP code should set specific 'AdditionalTransferError'
> for the caller when it fails on each of the response header checks:
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> c#L464
>
> But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be utilized for
> this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP protocols
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the protocol specific
> errors? What do you think?
>
> Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in the PLDM
> protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting additional error
> information to the user?
>
> I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks with some
> things that I've found today.
> https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would be
> > to move these checks to the EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> code
> > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> >
> > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such information
> > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Aladyshev
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
> > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> c#L24
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to know the
> > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> c#L261
> > >
> > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or maybe
> > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further PLDM
> > > > communication?
> > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no flexibility
> > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> c#L121
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf
> Of
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your
> end.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > directly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and MCTP
> EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new KbcCommonLib.c.
> Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and
> keep
> > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and
> I'm the
> > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > Ok.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
> > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here:
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your code
> here:
> https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on
> > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So as I've described in the
> https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
> > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody really
> > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've helped
> to
> > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
> > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly
> ready:
> > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver upstream.
> > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not sure
> > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the work
> > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
> > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem
> creator
> > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So this
> > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked up
> > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Abner
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner
> <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your
> end.
> > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and
> keep
> > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and
> I'm the
> > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I
> would take
> > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
> > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > +++
> > > > > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > +++
> > > > > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x)
> is
> > > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID
> (%x)
> > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner
> <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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 (#109517): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109517
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

Hi Chang!

Thanks for the response!
Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?

https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c#L459
```
EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0  mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
  GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
  SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
  GetSmbiosStructureTable,
  SetSmbiosStructureTable,
  GetSmbiosStructureByType,
  GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
};
```

I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6

If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion before posting
them to the mailing list. So you can review them and provide feedback.

Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required changes
yourself, or am I on my own from here?)

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
> Hi Aladyshev,
> Here is my response,
>
> 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like to have the input parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use pointers for the given SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is NULL.
>
> 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array ofexpected response sizes.
> The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS, it doesn't have to handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care about the response data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define the PLDM response size for any PLDM spec.
> As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a fixe size. I think we can remove the array and just adjust the response size in PLDM Protocol driver.
>
> 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to accommodate error codes for the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much implementation of 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs more practices to make it more mature.
> I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError' using the most significant byte, for example
> 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> 0x80 - KCS transport error
> 0x81 - MCTP
> ...
> 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> ...
>
> How do you think?
> Thanks
> Abner
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> >
> >
> > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more observation.
> >
> > I think the MCTP code should set specific 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > for the caller when it fails on each of the response header checks:
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > c#L464
> >
> > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be utilized for
> > this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP protocols
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the protocol specific
> > errors? What do you think?
> >
> > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in the PLDM
> > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting additional error
> > information to the user?
> >
> > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks with some
> > things that I've found today.
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Aladyshev
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would be
> > > to move these checks to the EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > code
> > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > >
> > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such information
> > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
> > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > c#L24
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to know the
> > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > c#L261
> > > >
> > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or maybe
> > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further PLDM
> > > > > communication?
> > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no flexibility
> > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > c#L121
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf
> > Of
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your
> > end.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and MCTP
> > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new KbcCommonLib.c.
> > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and
> > keep
> > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and
> > I'm the
> > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
> > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > >
> > platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here:
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your code
> > here:
> > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes on
> > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody really
> > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've helped
> > to
> > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
> > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly
> > ready:
> > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver upstream.
> > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not sure
> > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the work
> > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
> > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem
> > creator
> > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So this
> > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked up
> > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Abner
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner
> > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at your
> > end.
> > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review and
> > keep
> > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author and
> > I'm the
> > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I
> > would take
> > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux kernel
> > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID (%x)
> > is
> > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination EID
> > (%x)
> > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner
> > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109585): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109585
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
>
>
> Hi Chang!
>
> Thanks for the response!
> Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
> SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
>
> https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> e.c#L459
> ```
> EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
>   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
>   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
>   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
>   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
>   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
>   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> };
> ```
For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can add a API in EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for setting the PLDM terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a burden to this protocol.
So, we can do this,

Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8 DestinationTid) API and put it in the first member of EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked by SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application driver (e.g., SMBIOS) has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib instance. We still define PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP protocol. Use PCD instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never been set in PldmProtocolLib.

EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
  SetPldmTerminus,
  GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
  SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
  GetSmbiosStructureTable,
  SetSmbiosStructureTable,
  GetSmbiosStructureByType,
  GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
};

>
> I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
>
> If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion before posting
> them to the mailing list. So you can review them and provide feedback.
I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this way we don’t have the history in mailing list.

>
> Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required changes
> yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for me to update the code, however it would be later next week as I have to work on some tasks.

BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of a firm?

Thanks
Abner
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> > Hi Aladyshev,
> > Here is my response,
> >
> > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like to have the input
> parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use pointers for the given
> SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is NULL.
> >
> > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array ofexpected response
> sizes.
> > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS, it doesn't have to
> handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care about the response
> data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define the PLDM response
> size for any PLDM spec.
> > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a fixe size. I think we
> can remove the array and just adjust the response size in PLDM Protocol
> driver.
> >
> > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to accommodate error codes for
> the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much implementation of
> 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs more practices to
> make it more mature.
> > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError' using the most
> significant byte, for example
> > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > 0x81 - MCTP
> > ...
> > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > ...
> >
> > How do you think?
> > Thanks
> > Abner
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more observation.
> > >
> > > I think the MCTP code should set specific 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response header checks:
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > c#L464
> > >
> > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be utilized for
> > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP protocols
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the protocol specific
> > > errors? What do you think?
> > >
> > > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in the PLDM
> > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting additional error
> > > information to the user?
> > >
> > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks with some
> > > things that I've found today.
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would be
> > > > to move these checks to the
> EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > code
> > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > >
> > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such
> information
> > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
> > > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > c#L24
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to know the
> > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > c#L261
> > > > >
> > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or
> maybe
> > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further
> PLDM
> > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no flexibility
> > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > >
> platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > c#L121
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On
> Behalf
> > > Of
> > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at
> your
> > > end.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and
> MCTP
> > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review
> and
> > > keep
> > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author
> and
> > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
> > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here:
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your code
> > > here:
> > >
> https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes
> on
> > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody
> really
> > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've
> helped
> > > to
> > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
> > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly
> > > ready:
> > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver
> upstream.
> > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not
> sure
> > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the
> work
> > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
> > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem
> > > creator
> > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So
> this
> > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked
> up
> > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner
> > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at
> your
> > > end.
> > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review
> and
> > > keep
> > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author
> and
> > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I
> > > would take
> > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux
> kernel
> > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID
> (%x)
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination
> EID
> > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner
> > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109615): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109615
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

Sorry I got confused a little bit by your answer.
You were talking about PLDM TIDs (Terminus IDs) and I was asking about
MCTP EIDs. Don't they like different concepts? Or did you mean that we
need to have a mapping of TIDs<-->EIDs in PldmProtocolLib?

> I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this way we don’t have the history in the mailing list.
If the code looks good to you, I'll try to properly format all our
patches and send them to the mailing list next week.

> BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of a firm?
As a part of my job I develop UEFI and BMC firmware. But all the
open-source work that I do I perform on my own free time. So you can
count me as an individual contributor)

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
> >
> >
> > Hi Chang!
> >
> > Thanks for the response!
> > Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
> > SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
> >
> > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> > e.c#L459
> > ```
> > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > };
> > ```
> For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can add a API in EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for setting the PLDM terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a burden to this protocol.
> So, we can do this,
>
> Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8 DestinationTid) API and put it in the first member of EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
> Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked by SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application driver (e.g., SMBIOS) has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib instance. We still define PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP protocol. Use PCD instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never been set in PldmProtocolLib.
>
> EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
> mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
>   SetPldmTerminus,
>   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
>   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
>   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
>   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
>   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
>   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> };
>
> >
> > I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> > edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> >
> > If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion before posting
> > them to the mailing list. So you can review them and provide feedback.
> I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this way we don’t have the history in mailing list.
>
> >
> > Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required changes
> > yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
> That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for me to update the code, however it would be later next week as I have to work on some tasks.
>
> BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of a firm?
>
> Thanks
> Abner
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Aladyshev
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > >
> > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > Here is my response,
> > >
> > > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like to have the input
> > parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use pointers for the given
> > SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is NULL.
> > >
> > > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array ofexpected response
> > sizes.
> > > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS, it doesn't have to
> > handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care about the response
> > data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define the PLDM response
> > size for any PLDM spec.
> > > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a fixe size. I think we
> > can remove the array and just adjust the response size in PLDM Protocol
> > driver.
> > >
> > > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to accommodate error codes for
> > the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much implementation of
> > 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs more practices to
> > make it more mature.
> > > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError' using the most
> > significant byte, for example
> > > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > > 0x81 - MCTP
> > > ...
> > > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > > ...
> > >
> > > How do you think?
> > > Thanks
> > > Abner
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more observation.
> > > >
> > > > I think the MCTP code should set specific 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response header checks:
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > c#L464
> > > >
> > > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be utilized for
> > > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP protocols
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the protocol specific
> > > > errors? What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in the PLDM
> > > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting additional error
> > > > information to the user?
> > > >
> > > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks with some
> > > > things that I've found today.
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would be
> > > > > to move these checks to the
> > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > > code
> > > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > > >
> > > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such
> > information
> > > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
> > > > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > c#L24
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to know the
> > > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > c#L261
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or
> > maybe
> > > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further
> > PLDM
> > > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no flexibility
> > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > c#L121
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On
> > Behalf
> > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at
> > your
> > > > end.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and
> > MCTP
> > > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review
> > and
> > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author
> > and
> > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId' and
> > > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here:
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your code
> > > > here:
> > > >
> > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your changes
> > on
> > > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> > > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody
> > really
> > > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've
> > helped
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to tell
> > > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are mostly
> > > > ready:
> > > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver
> > upstream.
> > > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not
> > sure
> > > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the
> > work
> > > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some questions
> > > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS subsystem
> > > > creator
> > > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly. So
> > this
> > > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be picked
> > up
> > > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at
> > your
> > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review
> > and
> > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the author
> > and
> > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think I
> > > > would take
> > > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux
> > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source EID
> > (%x)
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP destination
> > EID
> > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109616): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109616
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 4:26 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.
>
>
> Sorry I got confused a little bit by your answer.
> You were talking about PLDM TIDs (Terminus IDs) and I was asking about
> MCTP EIDs. Don't they like different concepts? Or did you mean that we
> need to have a mapping of TIDs<-->EIDs in PldmProtocolLib?
I just distinguish the ID naming for PLDM and MCTP using the terminologies defined in spec. For PLDM to MCTP, the values are the same as the SID and EID are passed to MCTP from PLDM.

>
> > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this way
> we don’t have the history in the mailing list.
> If the code looks good to you, I'll try to properly format all our
> patches and send them to the mailing list next week.
Ok, I see.
>
> > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of a
> firm?
> As a part of my job I develop UEFI and BMC firmware. But all the
> open-source work that I do I perform on my own free time. So you can
> count me as an individual contributor)
I am asking this because I am looking for an additional reviewer for ManageabilityPkg as the replacement of Isaac from Intel as he is no longer works on edk2 stuff.

Thanks
Abner

>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Chang!
> > >
> > > Thanks for the response!
> > > Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
> > > SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the
> PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
> > >
> > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > >
> platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> > > e.c#L459
> > > ```
> > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > };
> > > ```
> > For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can add a API in
> EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for setting the PLDM
> terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a burden to this protocol.
> > So, we can do this,
> >
> > Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8 DestinationTid) API and
> put it in the first member of
> EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
> > Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked by
> SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application driver (e.g., SMBIOS)
> has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib instance. We still define
> PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP protocol. Use PCD
> instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never been set in
> PldmProtocolLib.
> >
> > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
> > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> >   SetPldmTerminus,
> >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > };
> >
> > >
> > > I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> > > edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > >
> > > If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion before posting
> > > them to the mailing list. So you can review them and provide feedback.
> > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this way
> we don’t have the history in mailing list.
> >
> > >
> > > Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required changes
> > > yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
> > That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for me to update the
> code, however it would be later next week as I have to work on some tasks.
> >
> > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of a
> firm?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Abner
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner
> <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > >
> > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > Here is my response,
> > > >
> > > > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > > > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like to have the
> input
> > > parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use pointers for the given
> > > SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is NULL.
> > > >
> > > > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array ofexpected response
> > > sizes.
> > > > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS, it doesn't have
> to
> > > handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care about the
> response
> > > data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define the PLDM
> response
> > > size for any PLDM spec.
> > > > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a fixe size. I think we
> > > can remove the array and just adjust the response size in PLDM Protocol
> > > driver.
> > > >
> > > > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to accommodate error codes
> for
> > > the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much implementation of
> > > 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs more practices
> to
> > > make it more mature.
> > > > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError' using the most
> > > significant byte, for example
> > > > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > > > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > > > 0x81 - MCTP
> > > > ...
> > > > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > > > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > How do you think?
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Abner
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more observation.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the MCTP code should set specific 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response header checks:
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > c#L464
> > > > >
> > > > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be utilized for
> > > > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP protocols
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the protocol specific
> > > > > errors? What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in the PLDM
> > > > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting additional error
> > > > > information to the user?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks with some
> > > > > things that I've found today.
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would be
> > > > > > to move these checks to the
> > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > > > code
> > > > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > > > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such
> > > information
> > > > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
> > > > > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > c#L24
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to know
> the
> > > > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > c#L261
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function
> to
> > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or
> > > maybe
> > > > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further
> > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no
> flexibility
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > c#L121
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at
> > > your
> > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and
> > > MCTP
> > > > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new
> KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review
> > > and
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the
> author
> > > and
> > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId'
> and
> > > > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here:
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your
> code
> > > > > here:
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your
> changes
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in
> OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will be
> > > > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2) nobody
> > > really
> > > > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've
> > > helped
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to
> tell
> > > > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are
> mostly
> > > > > ready:
> > > > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add
> pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver
> > > upstream.
> > > > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm not
> > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish the
> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some
> questions
> > > > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS
> subsystem
> > > > > creator
> > > > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly.
> So
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be
> picked
> > > up
> > > > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors at
> > > your
> > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for review
> > > and
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the
> author
> > > and
> > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you think
> I
> > > > > would take
> > > > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after I've
> > > > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp Linux
> > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-kernel)
> > > > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket (
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source
> EID
> > > (%x)
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP
> destination
> > > EID
> > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109617): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109617
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

Hi Aladyshev,
I had updated code according to our discussion on PLDM over MCTP, please take a look at https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE and verify it at you end if possible. The PLDM command table is also removed at this version.

Thanks
Abner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
> Chang, Abner via groups.io
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 5:11 PM
> To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Cc: discuss@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io
> Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over KCS
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution
> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 4:26 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.
> >
> >
> > Sorry I got confused a little bit by your answer.
> > You were talking about PLDM TIDs (Terminus IDs) and I was asking about
> > MCTP EIDs. Don't they like different concepts? Or did you mean that we
> > need to have a mapping of TIDs<-->EIDs in PldmProtocolLib?
> I just distinguish the ID naming for PLDM and MCTP using the terminologies
> defined in spec. For PLDM to MCTP, the values are the same as the SID and EID
> are passed to MCTP from PLDM.
>
> >
> > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this
> way
> > we don’t have the history in the mailing list.
> > If the code looks good to you, I'll try to properly format all our
> > patches and send them to the mailing list next week.
> Ok, I see.
> >
> > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of a
> > firm?
> > As a part of my job I develop UEFI and BMC firmware. But all the
> > open-source work that I do I perform on my own free time. So you can
> > count me as an individual contributor)
> I am asking this because I am looking for an additional reviewer for
> ManageabilityPkg as the replacement of Isaac from Intel as he is no longer
> works on edk2 stuff.
>
> Thanks
> Abner
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Aladyshev
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Chang!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the response!
> > > > Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
> > > > SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the
> > PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > >
> >
> platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> > > >
> >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> > > > e.c#L459
> > > > ```
> > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > };
> > > > ```
> > > For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can add a API in
> > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for setting the PLDM
> > terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a burden to this
> protocol.
> > > So, we can do this,
> > >
> > > Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8 DestinationTid) API and
> > put it in the first member of
> > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
> > > Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked by
> > SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application driver (e.g., SMBIOS)
> > has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib instance. We still
> define
> > PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP protocol. Use PCD
> > instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never been set in
> > PldmProtocolLib.
> > >
> > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
> > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > >   SetPldmTerminus,
> > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > };
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> > > > edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > >
> > > > If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion before posting
> > > > them to the mailing list. So you can review them and provide feedback.
> > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this
> way
> > we don’t have the history in mailing list.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required changes
> > > > yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
> > > That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for me to update the
> > code, however it would be later next week as I have to work on some tasks.
> > >
> > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of a
> > firm?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Abner
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner
> > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > Here is my response,
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > > > > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like to have the
> > input
> > > > parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use pointers for the
> given
> > > > SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is NULL.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array ofexpected
> response
> > > > sizes.
> > > > > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS, it doesn't have
> > to
> > > > handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care about the
> > response
> > > > data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define the PLDM
> > response
> > > > size for any PLDM spec.
> > > > > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a fixe size. I think
> we
> > > > can remove the array and just adjust the response size in PLDM Protocol
> > > > driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to accommodate error
> codes
> > for
> > > > the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much implementation
> of
> > > > 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs more
> practices
> > to
> > > > make it more mature.
> > > > > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError' using the most
> > > > significant byte, for example
> > > > > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > > > > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > > > > 0x81 - MCTP
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > > > > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you think?
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Abner
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more observation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the MCTP code should set specific 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > > > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response header checks:
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > c#L464
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be utilized for
> > > > > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP protocols
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > > > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the protocol specific
> > > > > > errors? What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in the PLDM
> > > > > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting additional error
> > > > > > information to the user?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks with some
> > > > > > things that I've found today.
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would be
> > > > > > > to move these checks to the
> > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > > > > code
> > > > > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > > > > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such
> > > > information
> > > > > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
> > > > > > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > c#L24
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to
> know
> > the
> > > > > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > c#L261
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple
> 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function
> > to
> > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or
> > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further
> > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no
> > flexibility
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > c#L121
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
> On
> > > > Behalf
> > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors
> at
> > > > your
> > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > > > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and
> > > > MCTP
> > > > > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new
> > KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > > > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for
> review
> > > > and
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the
> > author
> > > > and
> > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing
> list.
> > > > > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId'
> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here:
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your
> > code
> > > > > > here:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your
> > changes
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in
> > OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > > > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will
> be
> > > > > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2)
> nobody
> > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've
> > > > helped
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to
> > tell
> > > > > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are
> > mostly
> > > > > > ready:
> > > > > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add
> > pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver
> > > > upstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm
> not
> > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish
> the
> > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some
> > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS
> > subsystem
> > > > > > creator
> > > > > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly.
> > So
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be
> > picked
> > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors
> at
> > > > your
> > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for
> review
> > > > and
> > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the
> > author
> > > > and
> > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you
> think
> > I
> > > > > > would take
> > > > > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after
> I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp
> Linux
> > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-
> kernel)
> > > > > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket
> (
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source
> > EID
> > > > (%x)
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP
> > destination
> > > > EID
> > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109665): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109665
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

Hi Abner,

In the code you are using:
PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED
PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_RESERVED
PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
but I don't see any definitions for these values.
I'm particularly confused about the meaning and usage of the
PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL value.

My understanding was that we give initial values for the TerminusId
values as PCDs:
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16C1-L17C79
```
UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
```

And in the PldmSubmit function just use them:
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L100
```
  Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0->PldmSubmitCommand (
                                                       mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
                                                       PldmType,
                                                       Command,
                                                       mSourcePldmTerminusId,

mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
                                                       RequestData,
                                                       RequestDataSize,
                                                       ResponseData,
                                                       ResponseDataSize
                                                       );
```
Writing this it looks like we don't even need to pass TIDs as pointers
in this case.
Wouldn't it work like we want it to?

One more minor observation, there are actually 2 reserved values for
the TID according to the specification: 0x00 and 0xff.


Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 6:41 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
> Hi Aladyshev,
> I had updated code according to our discussion on PLDM over MCTP, please take a look at https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE and verify it at you end if possible. The PLDM command table is also removed at this version.
>
> Thanks
> Abner
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
> > Chang, Abner via groups.io
> > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 5:11 PM
> > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Cc: discuss@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io
> > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over KCS
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution
> > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> >
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 4:26 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry I got confused a little bit by your answer.
> > > You were talking about PLDM TIDs (Terminus IDs) and I was asking about
> > > MCTP EIDs. Don't they like different concepts? Or did you mean that we
> > > need to have a mapping of TIDs<-->EIDs in PldmProtocolLib?
> > I just distinguish the ID naming for PLDM and MCTP using the terminologies
> > defined in spec. For PLDM to MCTP, the values are the same as the SID and EID
> > are passed to MCTP from PLDM.
> >
> > >
> > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this
> > way
> > > we don’t have the history in the mailing list.
> > > If the code looks good to you, I'll try to properly format all our
> > > patches and send them to the mailing list next week.
> > Ok, I see.
> > >
> > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of a
> > > firm?
> > > As a part of my job I develop UEFI and BMC firmware. But all the
> > > open-source work that I do I perform on my own free time. So you can
> > > count me as an individual contributor)
> > I am asking this because I am looking for an additional reviewer for
> > ManageabilityPkg as the replacement of Isaac from Intel as he is no longer
> > works on edk2 stuff.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Abner
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Chang!
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the response!
> > > > > Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
> > > > > SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the
> > > PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> > > > > e.c#L459
> > > > > ```
> > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > };
> > > > > ```
> > > > For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can add a API in
> > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for setting the PLDM
> > > terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a burden to this
> > protocol.
> > > > So, we can do this,
> > > >
> > > > Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8 DestinationTid) API and
> > > put it in the first member of
> > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
> > > > Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked by
> > > SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application driver (e.g., SMBIOS)
> > > has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib instance. We still
> > define
> > > PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP protocol. Use PCD
> > > instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never been set in
> > > PldmProtocolLib.
> > > >
> > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
> > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > >   SetPldmTerminus,
> > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> > > > > edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > >
> > > > > If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion before posting
> > > > > them to the mailing list. So you can review them and provide feedback.
> > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this
> > way
> > > we don’t have the history in mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required changes
> > > > > yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
> > > > That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for me to update the
> > > code, however it would be later next week as I have to work on some tasks.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of a
> > > firm?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Abner
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner
> > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > Here is my response,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function to
> > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > > > > > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like to have the
> > > input
> > > > > parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use pointers for the
> > given
> > > > > SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is NULL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array ofexpected
> > response
> > > > > sizes.
> > > > > > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS, it doesn't have
> > > to
> > > > > handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care about the
> > > response
> > > > > data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define the PLDM
> > > response
> > > > > size for any PLDM spec.
> > > > > > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a fixe size. I think
> > we
> > > > > can remove the array and just adjust the response size in PLDM Protocol
> > > > > driver.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to accommodate error
> > codes
> > > for
> > > > > the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much implementation
> > of
> > > > > 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs more
> > practices
> > > to
> > > > > make it more mature.
> > > > > > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError' using the most
> > > > > significant byte, for example
> > > > > > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > > > > > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > > > > > 0x81 - MCTP
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > > > > > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you think?
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Abner
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more observation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think the MCTP code should set specific 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > > > > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response header checks:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > c#L464
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be utilized for
> > > > > > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP protocols
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > > > > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the protocol specific
> > > > > > > errors? What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in the PLDM
> > > > > > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting additional error
> > > > > > > information to the user?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks with some
> > > > > > > things that I've found today.
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would be
> > > > > > > > to move these checks to the
> > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > > > > > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such
> > > > > information
> > > > > > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array of
> > > > > > > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > c#L24
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to
> > know
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported array:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > c#L261
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple
> > 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters? Or
> > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for further
> > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no
> > > flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > c#L121
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
> > On
> > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors
> > at
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all basic
> > > > > > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC and
> > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new
> > > KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > > > > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for
> > review
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the
> > > author
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing
> > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that 'MctpSourceEndpointId'
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update your
> > > code
> > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your
> > > changes
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > > > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in
> > > OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used now)
> > > > > > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach will
> > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2)
> > nobody
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which I've
> > > > > helped
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for me to
> > > tell
> > > > > > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are
> > > mostly
> > > > > > > ready:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add
> > > pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver
> > > > > upstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so I'm
> > not
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to finish
> > the
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some
> > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS
> > > subsystem
> > > > > > > creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem correctly.
> > > So
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be
> > > picked
> > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build errors
> > at
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for
> > review
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the
> > > author
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you
> > think
> > > I
> > > > > > > would take
> > > > > > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but after
> > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp
> > Linux
> > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-
> > kernel)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket
> > (
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec = HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0, ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP source
> > > EID
> > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP
> > > destination
> > > > > EID
> > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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 <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109667): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109667
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 4:54 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.
>
>
> Hi Abner,
>
> In the code you are using:
> PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED
> PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_RESERVED
> PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
> but I don't see any definitions for these values.
> I'm particularly confused about the meaning and usage of the
> PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL value.
Oops. That is in edk2. Here it is: https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE

>
> My understanding was that we give initial values for the TerminusId
> values as PCDs:
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16C
> 1-L17C79
> ```
> UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> ```
If we do this then we have to change the platform PCD setting in build time to give the different value of PLDM terminus ID. So the EFI shell application binary (e.g., 3rd party EFI app if any) has no way to use different TID value, unless we declare PCD as dynamic and EFI application has to use PCD protocol to change the value. This would be the burden of EFI application and unnecessary in my option.
So the implementation is if SetPldmSmbiosTransferTerminusId is invoked, PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib is invoked to set the new value of TID and only for PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol. Otherwise the default PCD defined by platform developer are used. This is the most flexible to support different use cases.

>
> And in the PldmSubmit function just use them:
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L100
> ```
>   Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0->PldmSubmitCommand
> (
>                                                        mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
>                                                        PldmType,
>                                                        Command,
>                                                        mSourcePldmTerminusId,
>
> mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
>                                                        RequestData,
>                                                        RequestDataSize,
>                                                        ResponseData,
>                                                        ResponseDataSize
>                                                        );
> ```
> Writing this it looks like we don't even need to pass TIDs as pointers
> in this case.
> Wouldn't it work like we want it to?
>
> One more minor observation, there are actually 2 reserved values for
> the TID according to the specification: 0x00 and 0xff.
Yes, we can use 0x00 as the unsigned value as it is defined in GetTID command.

Thanks
Abner

>
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 6:41 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> > Hi Aladyshev,
> > I had updated code according to our discussion on PLDM over MCTP, please
> take a look at https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE and verify it at you end if possible.
> The PLDM command table is also removed at this version.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Abner
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On Behalf Of
> > > Chang, Abner via groups.io
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 5:11 PM
> > > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: discuss@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over
> KCS
> > >
> > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > >
> > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper
> caution
> > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > >
> > >
> > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 4:26 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry I got confused a little bit by your answer.
> > > > You were talking about PLDM TIDs (Terminus IDs) and I was asking about
> > > > MCTP EIDs. Don't they like different concepts? Or did you mean that we
> > > > need to have a mapping of TIDs<-->EIDs in PldmProtocolLib?
> > > I just distinguish the ID naming for PLDM and MCTP using the
> terminologies
> > > defined in spec. For PLDM to MCTP, the values are the same as the SID and
> EID
> > > are passed to MCTP from PLDM.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this
> > > way
> > > > we don’t have the history in the mailing list.
> > > > If the code looks good to you, I'll try to properly format all our
> > > > patches and send them to the mailing list next week.
> > > Ok, I see.
> > > >
> > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of
> a
> > > > firm?
> > > > As a part of my job I develop UEFI and BMC firmware. But all the
> > > > open-source work that I do I perform on my own free time. So you can
> > > > count me as an individual contributor)
> > > I am asking this because I am looking for an additional reviewer for
> > > ManageabilityPkg as the replacement of Isaac from Intel as he is no longer
> > > works on edk2 stuff.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Abner
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM Chang, Abner
> <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Chang!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the response!
> > > > > > Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
> > > > > > SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the
> > > > PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> > > > > > e.c#L459
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> > > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > > };
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can add a API in
> > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for setting the PLDM
> > > > terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a burden to this
> > > protocol.
> > > > > So, we can do this,
> > > > >
> > > > > Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8 DestinationTid) API
> and
> > > > put it in the first member of
> > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
> > > > > Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked by
> > > > SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application driver (e.g.,
> SMBIOS)
> > > > has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib instance. We still
> > > define
> > > > PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP protocol. Use PCD
> > > > instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never been set in
> > > > PldmProtocolLib.
> > > > >
> > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
> > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > >   SetPldmTerminus,
> > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> > > > > > edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion before posting
> > > > > > them to the mailing list. So you can review them and provide
> feedback.
> > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me. However this
> > > way
> > > > we don’t have the history in mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required changes
> > > > > > yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
> > > > > That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for me to update
> the
> > > > code, however it would be later next week as I have to work on some
> tasks.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the representative of
> a
> > > > firm?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Abner
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > Here is my response,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit' function
> to
> > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > > > > > > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like to have the
> > > > input
> > > > > > parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use pointers for the
> > > given
> > > > > > SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is NULL.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array ofexpected
> > > response
> > > > > > sizes.
> > > > > > > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS, it doesn't
> have
> > > > to
> > > > > > handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care about the
> > > > response
> > > > > > data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define the PLDM
> > > > response
> > > > > > size for any PLDM spec.
> > > > > > > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a fixe size. I
> think
> > > we
> > > > > > can remove the array and just adjust the response size in PLDM
> Protocol
> > > > > > driver.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to accommodate error
> > > codes
> > > > for
> > > > > > the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much
> implementation
> > > of
> > > > > > 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs more
> > > practices
> > > > to
> > > > > > make it more mature.
> > > > > > > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError' using the most
> > > > > > significant byte, for example
> > > > > > > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > > > > > > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > > > > > > 0x81 - MCTP
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > > > > > > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How do you think?
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more observation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think the MCTP code should set specific 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > > > > > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response header checks:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > c#L464
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be utilized for
> > > > > > > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP protocols
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > > > > > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the protocol
> specific
> > > > > > > > errors? What do you think?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in the PLDM
> > > > > > > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting additional error
> > > > > > > > information to the user?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks with
> some
> > > > > > > > things that I've found today.
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right solution would
> be
> > > > > > > > > to move these checks to the
> > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > > > > > > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should know such
> > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array
> of
> > > > > > > > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM command:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > c#L24
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't need to
> > > know
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > > > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the supported
> array:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > c#L261
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple
> > > 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > > > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol function.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit'
> function
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming parameters?
> Or
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters for
> further
> > > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs with no
> > > > flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > c#L121
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
> > > On
> > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build
> errors
> > > at
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since it is all
> basic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've used your https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of both PEC
> and
> > > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new
> > > > KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > > > > > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end. My fault.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for
> > > review
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the
> > > > author
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-devel' mailing
> > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check if PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that
> 'MctpSourceEndpointId'
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done here:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to update
> your
> > > > code
> > > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to merge your
> > > > changes
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP stack in
> > > > OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be really used
> now)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1) approach
> will
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel driver (2)
> > > nobody
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC patches which
> I've
> > > > > > helped
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is hard for
> me to
> > > > tell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like they are
> > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > ready:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add
> > > > pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport APIs |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux kernel driver
> > > > > > upstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every day, so
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined to
> finish
> > > the
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are some
> > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the KCS
> > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the subsystem
> correctly.
> > > > So
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it would be
> > > > picked
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some build
> errors
> > > at
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing list for
> > > review
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with you as the
> > > > author
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long do you
> > > think
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > would take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors, but
> after
> > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with the mctp
> > > Linux
> > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-
> > > kernel)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
> SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket
> > > (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0 specification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP
> source
> > > > EID
> > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of MCTP
> > > > destination
> > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func, MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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
> <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109671): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109671
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

Thanks!

I've found some issues with the current PLDM code, I hope I will get
back with complete feedback on how to make everything work by Friday.

I was also thinking about the response buffer interface in the
MctpProtocol/PldmProtocols.
Currently the caller should provide the response buffer big enough to
accommodate the actual response. Otherwise the code will return with
error.
I'm thinking, wouldn't it be better to just dynamically allocate the
response buffer inside the protocols and leave the responsibility of
calling FreePool(...) to the caller?
What do you think?

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:45 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
> Code update is on https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE, the last commit.
>
> Abner
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chang, Abner
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 10:49 AM
> > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over KCS
> >
> > Sure, this works for me. I will update the code.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Abner
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:58 PM
> > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oops, sorry, never mind the last letter. I think I've got confused
> > > between the different PldmSubmit functions.
> > > We don't need to change the protocol interface.
> > >
> > > But still I think we can get rid of special values like
> > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED and PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
> > with
> > > something like this:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16
> > > - UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED;
> > > - UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED;
> > > + UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > + UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > >
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L105
> > > ```
> > >   Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0-
> > >PldmSubmitCommand
> > > (
> > >                                                        mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
> > >                                                        PldmType,
> > >                                                        Command,
> > > -
> > > (mSourcePldmTerminusId == PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL)? (UINT8
> > > *)NULL:
> > > &mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > -
> > > (mDestinationPldmTerminusId == PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL)? (UINT8
> > > *)NULL: &mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > +                                                     &mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > +
> > > &mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > >                                                        RequestData,
> > >                                                        RequestDataSize,
> > >                                                        ResponseData,
> > >                                                        ResponseDataSize
> > >                                                        );
> > > ```
> > >
> > > I'll try to test everything on the hardware tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:12 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One more thought.
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't we also put the "PldmSetTerminus" to the
> > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL?
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > >
> > > > As you remember in my test application I've manually constructed the
> > > > MCTP buffer for the "GetPLDMTypes (0x04)" PLDM command and sent it
> > via
> > > > the EDKII_MCTP_PROTOCOL:
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > >
> > > > The next test should be to send the same command, but via the
> > > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL.
> > > > And to route the MCTP packet correctly, we somehow need to call the
> > > > "PldmSetTerminus" function, before calling "PldmSubmit".
> > > > So I think we need to add PldmSetTerminus to the
> > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL
> > > interface:
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > >
> > > > typedef struct {
> > > >   PLDM_SET_TERMINOUS PldmSetTerminous;
> > > >   PLDM_SUBMIT_COMMAND    PldmSubmitCommand;
> > > > } EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL_V1_0;
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 2:37 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, maybe I've described this wrong.
> > > > > Initially mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId would
> > get
> > > > > their values from the build-time PCDs:
> > > > > """
> > > > > UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > > """
> > > > >
> > > > > So by default the PCD values are used in the PLDM protocols. If the
> > > > > user want to use something different, he would execute something like
> > > > > 'PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol.PldmSetTerminus'. This function as written
> > > > > would change values of the
> > > > > "mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId".
> > > > > """
> > > > > PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol.PldmSetTerminus ->
> > > > > PldmProtocolLib.PldmSetTerminus -> modify
> > > > > mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId
> > > > > """
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L44
> > > > >
> > > > > In this case PldmSubmit can always just use
> > > > > mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId values for TIDs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:39 PM Chang, Abner
> > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 4:54 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Abner,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the code you are using:
> > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED
> > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_RESERVED
> > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
> > > > > > > but I don't see any definitions for these values.
> > > > > > > I'm particularly confused about the meaning and usage of the
> > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL value.
> > > > > > Oops. That is in edk2. Here it is:
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My understanding was that we give initial values for the TerminusId
> > > > > > > values as PCDs:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16C
> > > > > > > 1-L17C79
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > > > UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > If we do this then we have to change the platform PCD setting in build
> > > time to give the different value of PLDM terminus ID. So the EFI shell
> > > application binary (e.g., 3rd party EFI app if any) has no way to use different
> > > TID value, unless we declare PCD as dynamic and EFI application has to use
> > > PCD protocol to change the value. This would be the burden of EFI
> > application
> > > and unnecessary in my option.
> > > > > > So the implementation is if SetPldmSmbiosTransferTerminusId is
> > invoked,
> > > PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib is invoked to set the new value of TID
> > > and only for PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol. Otherwise the default PCD
> > defined
> > > by platform developer are used. This is the most flexible to support different
> > > use cases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And in the PldmSubmit function just use them:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L100
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > >   Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0-
> > > >PldmSubmitCommand
> > > > > > > (
> > > > > > >                                                        mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
> > > > > > >                                                        PldmType,
> > > > > > >                                                        Command,
> > > > > > >                                                        mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > >                                                        RequestData,
> > > > > > >                                                        RequestDataSize,
> > > > > > >                                                        ResponseData,
> > > > > > >                                                        ResponseDataSize
> > > > > > >                                                        );
> > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > Writing this it looks like we don't even need to pass TIDs as pointers
> > > > > > > in this case.
> > > > > > > Wouldn't it work like we want it to?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One more minor observation, there are actually 2 reserved values for
> > > > > > > the TID according to the specification: 0x00 and 0xff.
> > > > > > Yes, we can use 0x00 as the unsigned value as it is defined in GetTID
> > > command.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Abner
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 6:41 AM Chang, Abner
> > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > > I had updated code according to our discussion on PLDM over
> > MCTP,
> > > please
> > > > > > > take a look at https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE and verify it at you end if
> > > possible.
> > > > > > > The PLDM command table is also removed at this version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On
> > > Behalf Of
> > > > > > > > > Chang, Abner via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 5:11 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: discuss@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via
> > MCTP
> > > over
> > > > > > > KCS
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use
> > > proper
> > > > > > > caution
> > > > > > > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 4:26 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sorry I got confused a little bit by your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > You were talking about PLDM TIDs (Terminus IDs) and I was
> > asking
> > > about
> > > > > > > > > > MCTP EIDs. Don't they like different concepts? Or did you mean
> > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > need to have a mapping of TIDs<-->EIDs in PldmProtocolLib?
> > > > > > > > > I just distinguish the ID naming for PLDM and MCTP using the
> > > > > > > terminologies
> > > > > > > > > defined in spec. For PLDM to MCTP, the values are the same as the
> > > SID and
> > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > are passed to MCTP from PLDM.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me.
> > > However this
> > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > we don’t have the history in the mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > If the code looks good to you, I'll try to properly format all our
> > > > > > > > > > patches and send them to the mailing list next week.
> > > > > > > > > Ok, I see.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the
> > > representative of
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > firm?
> > > > > > > > > > As a part of my job I develop UEFI and BMC firmware. But all the
> > > > > > > > > > open-source work that I do I perform on my own free time. So
> > you
> > > can
> > > > > > > > > > count me as an individual contributor)
> > > > > > > > > I am asking this because I am looking for an additional reviewer for
> > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg as the replacement of Isaac from Intel as he is
> > no
> > > longer
> > > > > > > > > works on edk2 stuff.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chang!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the
> > > > > > > > > > PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> > > > > > > > > > > > e.c#L459
> > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> > > > > > > > > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can add a
> > > API in
> > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for setting
> > > the PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a burden to
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > protocol.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, we can do this,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8
> > > DestinationTid) API
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > put it in the first member of
> > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
> > > > > > > > > > > Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked by
> > > > > > > > > > SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application driver
> > (e.g.,
> > > > > > > SMBIOS)
> > > > > > > > > > has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib instance.
> > We
> > > still
> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP protocol.
> > > Use PCD
> > > > > > > > > > instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never been set
> > in
> > > > > > > > > > PldmProtocolLib.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
> > > > > > > > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > > > > > > > >   SetPldmTerminus,
> > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion before
> > > posting
> > > > > > > > > > > > them to the mailing list. So you can review them and provide
> > > > > > > feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me.
> > > However this
> > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > we don’t have the history in mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required
> > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
> > > > > > > > > > > That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for me to
> > > update
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > code, however it would be later next week as I have to work on
> > > some
> > > > > > > tasks.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the
> > > representative of
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > firm?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is my response,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's 'PldmSubmit'
> > > function
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like to
> > > have the
> > > > > > > > > > input
> > > > > > > > > > > > parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use pointers
> > > for the
> > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is NULL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array
> > > ofexpected
> > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > sizes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS, it
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care
> > about
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define the
> > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > size for any PLDM spec.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a fixe
> > > size. I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can remove the array and just adjust the response size in
> > PLDM
> > > > > > > Protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > driver.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to accommodate
> > > error
> > > > > > > > > codes
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs
> > > more
> > > > > > > > > practices
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > make it more mature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError' using
> > > the most
> > > > > > > > > > > > significant byte, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x81 - MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more
> > > observation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the MCTP code should set specific
> > > 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response header
> > > checks:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L464
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be
> > > utilized for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the IPMI/MCTP
> > > protocols
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the
> > > protocol
> > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > errors? What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError' in
> > the
> > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting
> > additional
> > > error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > information to the user?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms forks
> > > with
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > things that I've found today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right
> > solution
> > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to move these checks to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should
> > know
> > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code
> > contains
> > > array
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM
> > > command:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we don't
> > > need to
> > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the
> > > supported
> > > > > > > array:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L261
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple
> > > > > > > > > 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol
> > function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin
> > Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's
> > > 'PldmSubmit'
> > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming
> > > parameters?
> > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those parameters
> > > for
> > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to PCDs
> > > with no
> > > > > > > > > > flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L121
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io
> > > <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
> > > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some
> > > build
> > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that since
> > it
> > > is all
> > > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've used your
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes of
> > > both PEC
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the new
> > > > > > > > > > KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my end.
> > > My fault.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing
> > > list for
> > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with
> > you
> > > as the
> > > > > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-
> > devel'
> > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to check
> > if
> > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that
> > > > > > > 'MctpSourceEndpointId'
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually used
> > in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is done
> > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have to
> > > update
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to
> > merge
> > > your
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP
> > stack
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be
> > really
> > > used
> > > > > > > now)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1)
> > > approach
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel
> > driver
> > > (2)
> > > > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC
> > patches
> > > which
> > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > helped
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is
> > hard
> > > for
> > > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > > tell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks like
> > > they are
> > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ready:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add
> > > > > > > > > > pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm transport
> > > APIs |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux
> > kernel
> > > driver
> > > > > > > > > > > > upstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do every
> > > day, so
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty determined
> > > to
> > > > > > > finish
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there are
> > > some
> > > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with the
> > > KCS
> > > > > > > > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the
> > > subsystem
> > > > > > > correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux, it
> > > would be
> > > > > > > > > > picked
> > > > > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are some
> > > build
> > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the mailing
> > > list for
> > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with
> > you
> > > as the
> > > > > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how long
> > > do you
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16
> > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation errors,
> > > but
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side with
> > the
> > > mctp
> > > > > > > > > Linux
> > > > > > > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-
> > > > > > > > > kernel)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've found:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
> > > > > > > SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket
> > > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0
> > > specification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > > > > > > > > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> > > > > > > ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > > > > > > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> > > > > > > ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader-
> > > >ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@ MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of
> > > MCTP
> > > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func, MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value of
> > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > destination
> > > > > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func,
> > > MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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
> > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109766): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109766
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 1:14 AM
> To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>; 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.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> I've found some issues with the current PLDM code, I hope I will get
> back with complete feedback on how to make everything work by Friday.
>
> I was also thinking about the response buffer interface in the
> MctpProtocol/PldmProtocols.
> Currently the caller should provide the response buffer big enough to
> accommodate the actual response. Otherwise the code will return with
> error.
> I'm thinking, wouldn't it be better to just dynamically allocate the
> response buffer inside the protocols and leave the responsibility of
> calling FreePool(...) to the caller?
> What do you think?
I don’t have strong opinions on how to manage the response buffer. How about we get back to this after you verifying the functionality of the code changes we made and pushing the code to edk2-platform? This seems to me simpler than having all the code changes on hand.

BTW, I would like to merge the patch set you sent. Did you give me the PR or repo that has this code changes? Or I missed it?

Thanks
Abner

>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:45 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> > Code update is on https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE, the last commit.
> >
> > Abner
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chang, Abner
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 10:49 AM
> > > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over
> KCS
> > >
> > > Sure, this works for me. I will update the code.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Abner
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:58 PM
> > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oops, sorry, never mind the last letter. I think I've got confused
> > > > between the different PldmSubmit functions.
> > > > We don't need to change the protocol interface.
> > > >
> > > > But still I think we can get rid of special values like
> > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED and PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
> > > with
> > > > something like this:
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16
> > > > - UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED;
> > > > - UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED;
> > > > + UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > + UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L105
> > > > ```
> > > >   Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0-
> > > >PldmSubmitCommand
> > > > (
> > > >                                                        mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
> > > >                                                        PldmType,
> > > >                                                        Command,
> > > > -
> > > > (mSourcePldmTerminusId == PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL)? (UINT8
> > > > *)NULL:
> > > > &mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > -
> > > > (mDestinationPldmTerminusId == PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL)?
> (UINT8
> > > > *)NULL: &mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > > +                                                     &mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > +
> > > > &mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > >                                                        RequestData,
> > > >                                                        RequestDataSize,
> > > >                                                        ResponseData,
> > > >                                                        ResponseDataSize
> > > >                                                        );
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > I'll try to test everything on the hardware tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:12 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > One more thought.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shouldn't we also put the "PldmSetTerminus" to the
> > > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL?
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > > >
> > > > > As you remember in my test application I've manually constructed the
> > > > > MCTP buffer for the "GetPLDMTypes (0x04)" PLDM command and sent
> it
> > > via
> > > > > the EDKII_MCTP_PROTOCOL:
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > > >
> > > > > The next test should be to send the same command, but via the
> > > > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL.
> > > > > And to route the MCTP packet correctly, we somehow need to call the
> > > > > "PldmSetTerminus" function, before calling "PldmSubmit".
> > > > > So I think we need to add PldmSetTerminus to the
> > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL
> > > > interface:
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > > >
> > > > > typedef struct {
> > > > >   PLDM_SET_TERMINOUS PldmSetTerminous;
> > > > >   PLDM_SUBMIT_COMMAND    PldmSubmitCommand;
> > > > > } EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL_V1_0;
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 2:37 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, maybe I've described this wrong.
> > > > > > Initially mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId
> would
> > > get
> > > > > > their values from the build-time PCDs:
> > > > > > """
> > > > > > UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > > UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > > > """
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So by default the PCD values are used in the PLDM protocols. If the
> > > > > > user want to use something different, he would execute something
> like
> > > > > > 'PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol.PldmSetTerminus'. This function as
> written
> > > > > > would change values of the
> > > > > > "mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId".
> > > > > > """
> > > > > > PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol.PldmSetTerminus ->
> > > > > > PldmProtocolLib.PldmSetTerminus -> modify
> > > > > > mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId
> > > > > > """
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L44
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In this case PldmSubmit can always just use
> > > > > > mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId values for
> TIDs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:39 PM Chang, Abner
> > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 4:54 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Abner,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In the code you are using:
> > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED
> > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_RESERVED
> > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
> > > > > > > > but I don't see any definitions for these values.
> > > > > > > > I'm particularly confused about the meaning and usage of the
> > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL value.
> > > > > > > Oops. That is in edk2. Here it is:
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My understanding was that we give initial values for the
> TerminusId
> > > > > > > > values as PCDs:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16C
> > > > > > > > 1-L17C79
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > > > > UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > If we do this then we have to change the platform PCD setting in
> build
> > > > time to give the different value of PLDM terminus ID. So the EFI shell
> > > > application binary (e.g., 3rd party EFI app if any) has no way to use
> different
> > > > TID value, unless we declare PCD as dynamic and EFI application has to
> use
> > > > PCD protocol to change the value. This would be the burden of EFI
> > > application
> > > > and unnecessary in my option.
> > > > > > > So the implementation is if SetPldmSmbiosTransferTerminusId is
> > > invoked,
> > > > PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib is invoked to set the new value of
> TID
> > > > and only for PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol. Otherwise the default PCD
> > > defined
> > > > by platform developer are used. This is the most flexible to support
> different
> > > > use cases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And in the PldmSubmit function just use them:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L100
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >   Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0-
> > > > >PldmSubmitCommand
> > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > >                                                        mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
> > > > > > > >                                                        PldmType,
> > > > > > > >                                                        Command,
> > > > > > > >                                                        mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > > >                                                        RequestData,
> > > > > > > >                                                        RequestDataSize,
> > > > > > > >                                                        ResponseData,
> > > > > > > >                                                        ResponseDataSize
> > > > > > > >                                                        );
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > Writing this it looks like we don't even need to pass TIDs as
> pointers
> > > > > > > > in this case.
> > > > > > > > Wouldn't it work like we want it to?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One more minor observation, there are actually 2 reserved values
> for
> > > > > > > > the TID according to the specification: 0x00 and 0xff.
> > > > > > > Yes, we can use 0x00 as the unsigned value as it is defined in GetTID
> > > > command.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 6:41 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > > > I had updated code according to our discussion on PLDM over
> > > MCTP,
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > take a look at https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE and verify it at you end
> if
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > The PLDM command table is also removed at this version.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On
> > > > Behalf Of
> > > > > > > > > > Chang, Abner via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 5:11 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: discuss@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via
> > > MCTP
> > > > over
> > > > > > > > KCS
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > caution
> > > > > > > > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 4:26 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.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry I got confused a little bit by your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > You were talking about PLDM TIDs (Terminus IDs) and I was
> > > asking
> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > MCTP EIDs. Don't they like different concepts? Or did you
> mean
> > > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > > need to have a mapping of TIDs<-->EIDs in PldmProtocolLib?
> > > > > > > > > > I just distinguish the ID naming for PLDM and MCTP using the
> > > > > > > > terminologies
> > > > > > > > > > defined in spec. For PLDM to MCTP, the values are the same as
> the
> > > > SID and
> > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > are passed to MCTP from PLDM.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me.
> > > > However this
> > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > we don’t have the history in the mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > If the code looks good to you, I'll try to properly format all our
> > > > > > > > > > > patches and send them to the mailing list next week.
> > > > > > > > > > Ok, I see.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the
> > > > representative of
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > firm?
> > > > > > > > > > > As a part of my job I develop UEFI and BMC firmware. But all
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > open-source work that I do I perform on my own free time.
> So
> > > you
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > count me as an individual contributor)
> > > > > > > > > > I am asking this because I am looking for an additional reviewer
> for
> > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg as the replacement of Isaac from Intel as he
> is
> > > no
> > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > works on edk2 stuff.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chang!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the
> > > > > > > > > > > PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > e.c#L459
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can add
> a
> > > > API in
> > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for
> setting
> > > > the PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a burden
> to
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > protocol.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can do this,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8
> > > > DestinationTid) API
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > put it in the first member of
> > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked by
> > > > > > > > > > > SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application driver
> > > (e.g.,
> > > > > > > > SMBIOS)
> > > > > > > > > > > has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib
> instance.
> > > We
> > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP
> protocol.
> > > > Use PCD
> > > > > > > > > > > instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never been
> set
> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > PldmProtocolLib.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
> > > > > > > > > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > > > > > > > > >   SetPldmTerminus,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion
> before
> > > > posting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them to the mailing list. So you can review them and
> provide
> > > > > > > > feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me.
> > > > However this
> > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > we don’t have the history in mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for me
> to
> > > > update
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > code, however it would be later next week as I have to work
> on
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > tasks.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the
> > > > representative of
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > firm?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is my response,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's
> 'PldmSubmit'
> > > > function
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like
> to
> > > > have the
> > > > > > > > > > > input
> > > > > > > > > > > > > parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use
> pointers
> > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is
> NULL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array
> > > > ofexpected
> > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sizes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS,
> it
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care
> > > about
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define
> the
> > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > size for any PLDM spec.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a
> fixe
> > > > size. I
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can remove the array and just adjust the response size in
> > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > Protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > driver.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to
> accommodate
> > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > codes
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much
> > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > practices
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make it more mature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError'
> using
> > > > the most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > significant byte, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x81 - MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev
> <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more
> > > > observation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the MCTP code should set specific
> > > > 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response
> header
> > > > checks:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L464
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be
> > > > utilized for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the
> IPMI/MCTP
> > > > protocols
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the
> > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > errors? What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError'
> in
> > > the
> > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting
> > > additional
> > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information to the user?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms
> forks
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things that I've found today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right
> > > solution
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to move these checks to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should
> > > know
> > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin
> Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code
> > > contains
> > > > array
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM
> > > > command:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we
> don't
> > > > need to
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the
> > > > supported
> > > > > > > > array:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L261
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple
> > > > > > > > > > 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol
> > > function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin
> > > Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's
> > > > 'PldmSubmit'
> > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming
> > > > parameters?
> > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those
> parameters
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to
> PCDs
> > > > with no
> > > > > > > > > > > flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L121
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io
> > > > <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
> > > > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are
> some
> > > > build
> > > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that
> since
> > > it
> > > > is all
> > > > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've used your
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes
> of
> > > > both PEC
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the
> new
> > > > > > > > > > > KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my
> end.
> > > > My fault.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the
> mailing
> > > > list for
> > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with
> > > you
> > > > as the
> > > > > > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing
> list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-
> > > devel'
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to
> check
> > > if
> > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that
> > > > > > > > 'MctpSourceEndpointId'
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually
> used
> > > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is
> done
> > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have
> to
> > > > update
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to
> > > merge
> > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP
> > > stack
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be
> > > really
> > > > used
> > > > > > > > now)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1)
> > > > approach
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel
> > > driver
> > > > (2)
> > > > > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC
> > > patches
> > > > which
> > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > helped
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is
> > > hard
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > > > tell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks
> like
> > > > they are
> > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ready:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add
> > > > > > > > > > > pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm
> transport
> > > > APIs |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux
> > > kernel
> > > > driver
> > > > > > > > > > > > > upstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do
> every
> > > > day, so
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty
> determined
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > finish
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there
> are
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with
> the
> > > > KCS
> > > > > > > > > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the
> > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux,
> it
> > > > would be
> > > > > > > > > > > picked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang,
> Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are
> some
> > > > build
> > > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the
> mailing
> > > > list for
> > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with
> > > you
> > > > as the
> > > > > > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing
> list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how
> long
> > > > do you
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16
> > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > > <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation
> errors,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side
> with
> > > the
> > > > mctp
> > > > > > > > > > Linux
> > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-
> > > > > > > > > > kernel)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've
> found:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
> > > > > > > > SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket
> > > > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0
> > > > specification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > > > > > > > > > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> > > > > > > > ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > > > > > > > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> > > > > > > > ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader-
> > > > >ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@
> MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value
> of
> > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func,
> MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value
> of
> > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > destination
> > > > > > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func,
> > > > MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang,
> Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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
> > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18
> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109825): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109825
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Konstantin Aladyshev]

Hi Abner!

With several minor changes I was able to perform PLDM communication
via the EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL.
I've sent these changes to you via the pull request to your branch
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/7
I think this way it would be easier for you to review them.

I've also sent the PATCH v2 series to the edk2-platforms mailing list.
Here I did the following things:
- squashed correction like
https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/commit/8c792c2ba0d6d814ee91cd5e029fdeb21668313e
with earlier patches,
- added your new patches with proper commit messages and squashed some
redundant commits,
- added my new PLDM patches.

The correctly formatted patches I maintain here:
https://github.com/Kostr/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_KCS
(Basically the content of this branch is the same as our
MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE branch, only the patches are formatted more
nicely)

Do I need to perform a pull request directly to the
tianocore/edk2-platforms repo?

Also don't forget that we also need a couple of patches for the edk2 code.
Here is a branch with these patches:
https://github.com/Kostr/edk2/tree/MCTP_PLDM
Do I need to perform PR to tianocore/edk2 as well?

Best regards,
Konstantin Aladyshev

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:33 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - General]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 1:14 AM
> > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>; 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.
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > I've found some issues with the current PLDM code, I hope I will get
> > back with complete feedback on how to make everything work by Friday.
> >
> > I was also thinking about the response buffer interface in the
> > MctpProtocol/PldmProtocols.
> > Currently the caller should provide the response buffer big enough to
> > accommodate the actual response. Otherwise the code will return with
> > error.
> > I'm thinking, wouldn't it be better to just dynamically allocate the
> > response buffer inside the protocols and leave the responsibility of
> > calling FreePool(...) to the caller?
> > What do you think?
> I don’t have strong opinions on how to manage the response buffer. How about we get back to this after you verifying the functionality of the code changes we made and pushing the code to edk2-platform? This seems to me simpler than having all the code changes on hand.
>
> BTW, I would like to merge the patch set you sent. Did you give me the PR or repo that has this code changes? Or I missed it?
>
> Thanks
> Abner
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Konstantin Aladyshev
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:45 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > >
> > > Code update is on https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE, the last commit.
> > >
> > > Abner
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chang, Abner
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 10:49 AM
> > > > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP over
> > KCS
> > > >
> > > > Sure, this works for me. I will update the code.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Abner
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:58 PM
> > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Oops, sorry, never mind the last letter. I think I've got confused
> > > > > between the different PldmSubmit functions.
> > > > > We don't need to change the protocol interface.
> > > > >
> > > > > But still I think we can get rid of special values like
> > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED and PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
> > > > with
> > > > > something like this:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16
> > > > > - UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED;
> > > > > - UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED;
> > > > > + UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > + UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L105
> > > > > ```
> > > > >   Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0-
> > > > >PldmSubmitCommand
> > > > > (
> > > > >                                                        mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
> > > > >                                                        PldmType,
> > > > >                                                        Command,
> > > > > -
> > > > > (mSourcePldmTerminusId == PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL)? (UINT8
> > > > > *)NULL:
> > > > > &mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > > -
> > > > > (mDestinationPldmTerminusId == PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL)?
> > (UINT8
> > > > > *)NULL: &mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > > > +                                                     &mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > > +
> > > > > &mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > > >                                                        RequestData,
> > > > >                                                        RequestDataSize,
> > > > >                                                        ResponseData,
> > > > >                                                        ResponseDataSize
> > > > >                                                        );
> > > > > ```
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll try to test everything on the hardware tomorrow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:12 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One more thought.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shouldn't we also put the "PldmSetTerminus" to the
> > > > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL?
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As you remember in my test application I've manually constructed the
> > > > > > MCTP buffer for the "GetPLDMTypes (0x04)" PLDM command and sent
> > it
> > > > via
> > > > > > the EDKII_MCTP_PROTOCOL:
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The next test should be to send the same command, but via the
> > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL.
> > > > > > And to route the MCTP packet correctly, we somehow need to call the
> > > > > > "PldmSetTerminus" function, before calling "PldmSubmit".
> > > > > > So I think we need to add PldmSetTerminus to the
> > > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL
> > > > > interface:
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > > > >
> > > > > > typedef struct {
> > > > > >   PLDM_SET_TERMINOUS PldmSetTerminous;
> > > > > >   PLDM_SUBMIT_COMMAND    PldmSubmitCommand;
> > > > > > } EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL_V1_0;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 2:37 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, maybe I've described this wrong.
> > > > > > > Initially mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId
> > would
> > > > get
> > > > > > > their values from the build-time PCDs:
> > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > > > UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > > > > """
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So by default the PCD values are used in the PLDM protocols. If the
> > > > > > > user want to use something different, he would execute something
> > like
> > > > > > > 'PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol.PldmSetTerminus'. This function as
> > written
> > > > > > > would change values of the
> > > > > > > "mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId".
> > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol.PldmSetTerminus ->
> > > > > > > PldmProtocolLib.PldmSetTerminus -> modify
> > > > > > > mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId
> > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L44
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In this case PldmSubmit can always just use
> > > > > > > mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId values for
> > TIDs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:39 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 4:54 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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Abner,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In the code you are using:
> > > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED
> > > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_RESERVED
> > > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
> > > > > > > > > but I don't see any definitions for these values.
> > > > > > > > > I'm particularly confused about the meaning and usage of the
> > > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL value.
> > > > > > > > Oops. That is in edk2. Here it is:
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My understanding was that we give initial values for the
> > TerminusId
> > > > > > > > > values as PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16C
> > > > > > > > > 1-L17C79
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > > > > > UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > If we do this then we have to change the platform PCD setting in
> > build
> > > > > time to give the different value of PLDM terminus ID. So the EFI shell
> > > > > application binary (e.g., 3rd party EFI app if any) has no way to use
> > different
> > > > > TID value, unless we declare PCD as dynamic and EFI application has to
> > use
> > > > > PCD protocol to change the value. This would be the burden of EFI
> > > > application
> > > > > and unnecessary in my option.
> > > > > > > > So the implementation is if SetPldmSmbiosTransferTerminusId is
> > > > invoked,
> > > > > PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib is invoked to set the new value of
> > TID
> > > > > and only for PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol. Otherwise the default PCD
> > > > defined
> > > > > by platform developer are used. This is the most flexible to support
> > different
> > > > > use cases.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And in the PldmSubmit function just use them:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L100
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > >   Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0-
> > > > > >PldmSubmitCommand
> > > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > >                                                        mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
> > > > > > > > >                                                        PldmType,
> > > > > > > > >                                                        Command,
> > > > > > > > >                                                        mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > > > >                                                        RequestData,
> > > > > > > > >                                                        RequestDataSize,
> > > > > > > > >                                                        ResponseData,
> > > > > > > > >                                                        ResponseDataSize
> > > > > > > > >                                                        );
> > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > Writing this it looks like we don't even need to pass TIDs as
> > pointers
> > > > > > > > > in this case.
> > > > > > > > > Wouldn't it work like we want it to?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One more minor observation, there are actually 2 reserved values
> > for
> > > > > > > > > the TID according to the specification: 0x00 and 0xff.
> > > > > > > > Yes, we can use 0x00 as the unsigned value as it is defined in GetTID
> > > > > command.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 6:41 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > > > > I had updated code according to our discussion on PLDM over
> > > > MCTP,
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > take a look at https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE and verify it at you end
> > if
> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > The PLDM command table is also removed at this version.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io> On
> > > > > Behalf Of
> > > > > > > > > > > Chang, Abner via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 5:11 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: discuss@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via
> > > > MCTP
> > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > KCS
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use
> > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > caution
> > > > > > > > > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 4:26 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry I got confused a little bit by your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You were talking about PLDM TIDs (Terminus IDs) and I was
> > > > asking
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP EIDs. Don't they like different concepts? Or did you
> > mean
> > > > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > > > need to have a mapping of TIDs<-->EIDs in PldmProtocolLib?
> > > > > > > > > > > I just distinguish the ID naming for PLDM and MCTP using the
> > > > > > > > > terminologies
> > > > > > > > > > > defined in spec. For PLDM to MCTP, the values are the same as
> > the
> > > > > SID and
> > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > are passed to MCTP from PLDM.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me.
> > > > > However this
> > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > we don’t have the history in the mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If the code looks good to you, I'll try to properly format all our
> > > > > > > > > > > > patches and send them to the mailing list next week.
> > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I see.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the
> > > > > representative of
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > firm?
> > > > > > > > > > > > As a part of my job I develop UEFI and BMC firmware. But all
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > open-source work that I do I perform on my own free time.
> > So
> > > > you
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > count me as an individual contributor)
> > > > > > > > > > > I am asking this because I am looking for an additional reviewer
> > for
> > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg as the replacement of Isaac from Intel as he
> > is
> > > > no
> > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > > works on edk2 stuff.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chang!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.c#L459
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can add
> > a
> > > > > API in
> > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for
> > setting
> > > > > the PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a burden
> > to
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > protocol.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can do this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8
> > > > > DestinationTid) API
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > put it in the first member of
> > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked by
> > > > > > > > > > > > SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application driver
> > > > (e.g.,
> > > > > > > > > SMBIOS)
> > > > > > > > > > > > has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib
> > instance.
> > > > We
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > > PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP
> > protocol.
> > > > > Use PCD
> > > > > > > > > > > > instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never been
> > set
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > PldmProtocolLib.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetPldmTerminus,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion
> > before
> > > > > posting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to the mailing list. So you can review them and
> > provide
> > > > > > > > > feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to me.
> > > > > However this
> > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > we don’t have the history in mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the required
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for me
> > to
> > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > code, however it would be later next week as I have to work
> > on
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > tasks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the
> > > > > representative of
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > firm?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is my response,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's
> > 'PldmSubmit'
> > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would like
> > to
> > > > > have the
> > > > > > > > > > > > input
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use
> > pointers
> > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is
> > NULL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array
> > > > > ofexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sizes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as SMBIOS,
> > it
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only care
> > > > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > data belong to it. That's why I added the array to define
> > the
> > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > size for any PLDM spec.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in a
> > fixe
> > > > > size. I
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can remove the array and just adjust the response size in
> > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > Protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > driver.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to
> > accommodate
> > > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > > codes
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much
> > > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability needs
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > practices
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make it more mature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError'
> > using
> > > > > the most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > significant byte, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x81 - MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev
> > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one more
> > > > > observation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the MCTP code should set specific
> > > > > 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response
> > header
> > > > > checks:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L464
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can be
> > > > > utilized for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the
> > IPMI/MCTP
> > > > > protocols
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for the
> > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > errors? What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I don't see anything like 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting
> > > > additional
> > > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information to the user?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms
> > forks
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things that I've found today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right
> > > > solution
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to move these checks to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code should
> > > > know
> > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin
> > Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code
> > > > contains
> > > > > array
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected response sizes for every supported PLDM
> > > > > command:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we
> > don't
> > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the
> > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > array:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L261
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my simple
> > > > > > > > > > > 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol
> > > > function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin
> > > > Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's
> > > > > 'PldmSubmit'
> > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as incoming
> > > > > parameters?
> > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those
> > parameters
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to
> > PCDs
> > > > > with no
> > > > > > > > > > > > flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L121
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io
> > > > > <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are
> > some
> > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch that
> > since
> > > > it
> > > > > is all
> > > > > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've used your
> > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the changes
> > of
> > > > > both PEC
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the
> > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at my
> > end.
> > > > > My fault.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the
> > mailing
> > > > > list for
> > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with
> > > > you
> > > > > as the
> > > > > > > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing
> > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the 'edk2-
> > > > devel'
> > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to
> > check
> > > > if
> > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that
> > > > > > > > > 'MctpSourceEndpointId'
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't actually
> > used
> > > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is
> > done
> > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You have
> > to
> > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take to
> > > > merge
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the MCTP
> > > > stack
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't be
> > > > really
> > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > now)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the (1)
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux kernel
> > > > driver
> > > > > (2)
> > > > > > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC
> > > > patches
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > helped
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So it is
> > > > hard
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > > > > tell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it looks
> > like
> > > > > they are
> > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ready:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add
> > > > > > > > > > > > pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm
> > transport
> > > > > APIs |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp Linux
> > > > kernel
> > > > > driver
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > upstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do
> > every
> > > > > day, so
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty
> > determined
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > finish
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently there
> > are
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along with
> > the
> > > > > KCS
> > > > > > > > > > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the
> > > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > > correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the torvalds/linux,
> > it
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > > > > > > > picked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang,
> > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are
> > some
> > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the
> > mailing
> > > > > list for
> > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out, with
> > > > you
> > > > > as the
> > > > > > > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev mailing
> > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw, how
> > long
> > > > > do you
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 11:59:16
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > > > <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation
> > errors,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work fine!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > mctp
> > > > > > > > > > > Linux
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-
> > > > > > > > > > > kernel)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've
> > found:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
> > > > > > > > > SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket
> > > > > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0
> > > > > specification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > > > > > > > > > > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> > > > > > > > > ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > > > > > > > > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> > > > > > > > > ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8 *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader-
> > > > > >ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@
> > MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value
> > of
> > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func,
> > MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The value
> > of
> > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > destination
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func,
> > > > > MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang,
> > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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
> > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 2:18
> > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109866): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109866
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

[Chang, Abner via groups.io]

[AMD Official Use Only - General]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 9:01 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.
>
>
> Hi Abner!
>
> With several minor changes I was able to perform PLDM communication
> via the EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL.
> I've sent these changes to you via the pull request to your branch
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/7
> I think this way it would be easier for you to review them.
Thanks! I had reviewed and merged it. Please send another patch set for them.

>
> I've also sent the PATCH v2 series to the edk2-platforms mailing list.
> Here I did the following things:
> - squashed correction like
> https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/commit/8c792c2ba0d6d814ee91cd5e029fdeb21668313e
> with earlier patches,
> - added your new patches with proper commit messages and squashed some
> redundant commits,
> - added my new PLDM patches.
>
> The correctly formatted patches I maintain here:
> https://github.com/Kostr/edk2-platforms/tree/MCTP_KCS
> (Basically the content of this branch is the same as our
> MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE branch, only the patches are formatted more
> nicely)
Did you run Uncrustify on these files. If not, I will do it before merging  them to edk2-plattoms.

>
> Do I need to perform a pull request directly to the
> tianocore/edk2-platforms repo?
No for edk2-platforms, just need to push it.

>
> Also don't forget that we also need a couple of patches for the edk2 code.
> Here is a branch with these patches:
> https://github.com/Kostr/edk2/tree/MCTP_PLDM
> Do I need to perform PR to tianocore/edk2 as well?

Yes for edk2 to run CI on the changes. Uncrustify and PatchCheck are part of CI tests for coding standard. So you can rue those tools on local before creating PR.

Let me confirm the status of this upstream work again. To support SMBIOS PLDM transfer over MCTP then KCS, we need below changes,
1. V2 15 patches you sent two days ago. I will check them and merge them to edk2-platforms after #3.
2. New three patches on changab:MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You will help to send them to mailing list.
3. Two patches on edk2. You will help to create a PR for this.
TODO after above are done: Review memory allocation for the response package (PldmProtocol).

Thanks
Abner

>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Aladyshev
>
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:33 AM Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 1:14 AM
> > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>; 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > I've found some issues with the current PLDM code, I hope I will get
> > > back with complete feedback on how to make everything work by Friday.
> > >
> > > I was also thinking about the response buffer interface in the
> > > MctpProtocol/PldmProtocols.
> > > Currently the caller should provide the response buffer big enough to
> > > accommodate the actual response. Otherwise the code will return with
> > > error.
> > > I'm thinking, wouldn't it be better to just dynamically allocate the
> > > response buffer inside the protocols and leave the responsibility of
> > > calling FreePool(...) to the caller?
> > > What do you think?
> > I don’t have strong opinions on how to manage the response buffer. How
> about we get back to this after you verifying the functionality of the code
> changes we made and pushing the code to edk2-platform? This seems to me
> simpler than having all the code changes on hand.
> >
> > BTW, I would like to merge the patch set you sent. Did you give me the PR or
> repo that has this code changes? Or I missed it?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Abner
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 6:45 AM Chang, Abner
> <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > >
> > > > Code update is on https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE, the last commit.
> > > >
> > > > Abner
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Chang, Abner
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 10:49 AM
> > > > > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > Subject: RE: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages via MCTP
> over
> > > KCS
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, this works for me. I will update the code.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Abner
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:58 PM
> > > > > > To: Chang, Abner <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oops, sorry, never mind the last letter. I think I've got confused
> > > > > > between the different PldmSubmit functions.
> > > > > > We don't need to change the protocol interface.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But still I think we can get rid of special values like
> > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED and
> PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
> > > > > with
> > > > > > something like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16
> > > > > > - UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED;
> > > > > > - UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED;
> > > > > > + UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > > + UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L105
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >   Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0-
> > > > > >PldmSubmitCommand
> > > > > > (
> > > > > >                                                        mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
> > > > > >                                                        PldmType,
> > > > > >                                                        Command,
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > (mSourcePldmTerminusId == PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL)? (UINT8
> > > > > > *)NULL:
> > > > > > &mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > (mDestinationPldmTerminusId == PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL)?
> > > (UINT8
> > > > > > *)NULL: &mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > +                                                     &mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > &mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > > > >                                                        RequestData,
> > > > > >                                                        RequestDataSize,
> > > > > >                                                        ResponseData,
> > > > > >                                                        ResponseDataSize
> > > > > >                                                        );
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll try to test everything on the hardware tomorrow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:12 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One more thought.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shouldn't we also put the "PldmSetTerminus" to the
> > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL?
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As you remember in my test application I've manually constructed
> the
> > > > > > > MCTP buffer for the "GetPLDMTypes (0x04)" PLDM command and
> sent
> > > it
> > > > > via
> > > > > > > the EDKII_MCTP_PROTOCOL:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The next test should be to send the same command, but via the
> > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL.
> > > > > > > And to route the MCTP packet correctly, we somehow need to call
> the
> > > > > > > "PldmSetTerminus" function, before calling "PldmSubmit".
> > > > > > > So I think we need to add PldmSetTerminus to the
> > > > > EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL
> > > > > > interface:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Protocol/PldmProtocol.h#L71
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > typedef struct {
> > > > > > >   PLDM_SET_TERMINOUS PldmSetTerminous;
> > > > > > >   PLDM_SUBMIT_COMMAND    PldmSubmitCommand;
> > > > > > > } EDKII_PLDM_PROTOCOL_V1_0;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 2:37 PM Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry, maybe I've described this wrong.
> > > > > > > > Initially mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId
> > > would
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > their values from the build-time PCDs:
> > > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > > UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > > > > UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So by default the PCD values are used in the PLDM protocols. If the
> > > > > > > > user want to use something different, he would execute something
> > > like
> > > > > > > > 'PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol.PldmSetTerminus'. This function as
> > > written
> > > > > > > > would change values of the
> > > > > > > > "mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId".
> > > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > > PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol.PldmSetTerminus ->
> > > > > > > > PldmProtocolLib.PldmSetTerminus -> modify
> > > > > > > > mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId
> > > > > > > > """
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L44
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In this case PldmSubmit can always just use
> > > > > > > > mSourcePldmTerminusId/mDestinationPldmTerminusId values for
> > > TIDs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 1:39 PM Chang, Abner
> > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 4:54 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.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Abner,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In the code you are using:
> > > > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_UNASSIGNED
> > > > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_RESERVED
> > > > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL
> > > > > > > > > > but I don't see any definitions for these values.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm particularly confused about the meaning and usage of the
> > > > > > > > > > PLDM_TERMINUS_ID_SPECIAL value.
> > > > > > > > > Oops. That is in edk2. Here it is:
> > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My understanding was that we give initial values for the
> > > TerminusId
> > > > > > > > > > values as PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L16C
> > > > > > > > > > 1-L17C79
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > UINT8                mSourcePldmTerminusId      =
> > > > > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmSourceTerminusId);
> > > > > > > > > > UINT8                mDestinationPldmTerminusId =
> > > > > > > > > > PcdGet8(PcdPldmDestinationTerminusId);
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > If we do this then we have to change the platform PCD setting in
> > > build
> > > > > > time to give the different value of PLDM terminus ID. So the EFI shell
> > > > > > application binary (e.g., 3rd party EFI app if any) has no way to use
> > > different
> > > > > > TID value, unless we declare PCD as dynamic and EFI application has
> to
> > > use
> > > > > > PCD protocol to change the value. This would be the burden of EFI
> > > > > application
> > > > > > and unnecessary in my option.
> > > > > > > > > So the implementation is if SetPldmSmbiosTransferTerminusId is
> > > > > invoked,
> > > > > > PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib is invoked to set the new value
> of
> > > TID
> > > > > > and only for PldmSmbiosTransferProtocol. Otherwise the default PCD
> > > > > defined
> > > > > > by platform developer are used. This is the most flexible to support
> > > different
> > > > > > use cases.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And in the PldmSubmit function just use them:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/56087215747be4a6a73e17e8478d5a8c6e35c801/Features/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Library/PldmProtocolLibrary/Dxe/PldmProtocolLib.c#L100
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > >   Status = mEdkiiPldmProtocol->Functions.Version1_0-
> > > > > > >PldmSubmitCommand
> > > > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        mEdkiiPldmProtocol,
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        PldmType,
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        Command,
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        mSourcePldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > mDestinationPldmTerminusId,
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        RequestData,
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        RequestDataSize,
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        ResponseData,
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        ResponseDataSize
> > > > > > > > > >                                                        );
> > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > Writing this it looks like we don't even need to pass TIDs as
> > > pointers
> > > > > > > > > > in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't it work like we want it to?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > One more minor observation, there are actually 2 reserved
> values
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the TID according to the specification: 0x00 and 0xff.
> > > > > > > > > Yes, we can use 0x00 as the unsigned value as it is defined in
> GetTID
> > > > > > command.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 6:41 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > > > > > I had updated code according to our discussion on PLDM over
> > > > > MCTP,
> > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > take a look at https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE and verify it at you
> end
> > > if
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > > > The PLDM command table is also removed at this version.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
> On
> > > > > > Behalf Of
> > > > > > > > > > > > Chang, Abner via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 5:11 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: discuss@edk2.groups.io; devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [edk2-discuss] PLDM messages
> via
> > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > > KCS
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Caution: This message originated from an External Source.
> Use
> > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > caution
> > > > > > > > > > > > when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 4:26 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry I got confused a little bit by your answer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You were talking about PLDM TIDs (Terminus IDs) and I
> was
> > > > > asking
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP EIDs. Don't they like different concepts? Or did you
> > > mean
> > > > > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > need to have a mapping of TIDs<-->EIDs in
> PldmProtocolLib?
> > > > > > > > > > > > I just distinguish the ID naming for PLDM and MCTP using
> the
> > > > > > > > > > terminologies
> > > > > > > > > > > > defined in spec. For PLDM to MCTP, the values are the same
> as
> > > the
> > > > > > SID and
> > > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > are passed to MCTP from PLDM.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to
> me.
> > > > > > However this
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we don’t have the history in the mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If the code looks good to you, I'll try to properly format all
> our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > patches and send them to the mailing list next week.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I see.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the
> > > > > > representative of
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > firm?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As a part of my job I develop UEFI and BMC firmware. But
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > open-source work that I do I perform on my own free
> time.
> > > So
> > > > > you
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > count me as an individual contributor)
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am asking this because I am looking for an additional
> reviewer
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > ManageabilityPkg as the replacement of Isaac from Intel as
> he
> > > is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > > > works on edk2 stuff.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:06 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev
> <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2023 8:16 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chang!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the response!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it ok that because of 1) we would need to include
> MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SrcEID/DstEID in each function of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/06f6274d56422084281886fad447ab117fd0e487/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDx
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > e.c#L459
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL, we can
> add
> > > a
> > > > > > API in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 for
> > > setting
> > > > > > the PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminus. As adding Terminus STID and DTID seems a
> burden
> > > to
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > protocol.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can do this,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Define SetPldmTerminus (UINT8 SourceTid, UINT8
> > > > > > DestinationTid) API
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > put it in the first member of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Define PldmSetTerminus in PldmProtocolLib and invoked
> by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SetPldmTerminus API, this way each PLDM application
> driver
> > > > > (e.g.,
> > > > > > > > > > SMBIOS)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > has its own PLDM terminus ID in the PldmProtocolLib
> > > instance.
> > > > > We
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PCDs for these two PLDM ID which is similar to MCTP
> > > protocol.
> > > > > > Use PCD
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instead in case SourceTid and DestinationTid had never
> been
> > > set
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PldmProtocolLib.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL_V1_0 =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mPldmSmbiosTransferProtocolV10 = {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetPldmTerminus,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTableMetaData,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   SetSmbiosStructureTable,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByType,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   GetSmbiosStructureByHandle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also send you pull requests with my changes to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > edk2/edk2-platforms repos:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you don't mind I would send patches in this fashion
> > > before
> > > > > > posting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to the mailing list. So you can review them and
> > > provide
> > > > > > > > > > feedback.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reviewed these patches just now, that looks good to
> me.
> > > > > > However this
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we don’t have the history in mailing list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I wanted to ask if you plan to work on the
> required
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself, or am I on my own from here?)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That would be good if you can help, that is also fine for
> me
> > > to
> > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > code, however it would be later next week as I have to
> work
> > > on
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > tasks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, are you an individual contributor or you are the
> > > > > > representative of
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > firm?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 8:58 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Aladyshev,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is my response,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's
> > > 'PldmSubmit'
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I see the use case of EFI shell application. I would
> like
> > > to
> > > > > > have the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > input
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parameters similar with MctpSubmitCommand. Use
> > > pointers
> > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SEID and DEID, adopt the fix PCD value of the pointer is
> > > NULL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The 'PldmProtocolCommon' code contains array
> > > > > > ofexpected
> > > > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sizes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea is as an high level PLDM driver, such as
> SMBIOS,
> > > it
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handle the full size of PLDM message. It should only
> care
> > > > > about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > data belong to it. That's why I added the array to
> define
> > > the
> > > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > response
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > size for any PLDM spec.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As the PLDM message and PLDM complete code is in
> a
> > > fixe
> > > > > > size. I
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can remove the array and just adjust the response size
> in
> > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > Protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > driver.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The 'AdditionalTransferError' is designed to
> > > accommodate
> > > > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > > > codes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the specific transport or protocol. We don’t have much
> > > > > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'AdditionalTransferError' as the entire Manageability
> needs
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > practices
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make it more mature.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suggest we can categorize  'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > using
> > > > > > the most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > significant byte, for example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x00 - Common additional transfer error.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x80 - KCS transport error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0x81 - MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0xC0 - IPMI protocol error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0xC1 - PLDM protocol error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 11:18 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for many messages today, but I have one
> more
> > > > > > observation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the MCTP code should set specific
> > > > > > 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the caller when it fails on each of the response
> > > header
> > > > > > checks:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L464
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I'm not sure how 'AdditionalTransferError' can
> be
> > > > > > utilized for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this. Right now the errors are generic for the
> > > IPMI/MCTP
> > > > > > protocols
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > ManageabilityPkg/Include/Library/ManageabilityTransportLib.h#L63
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it would be good to reserve some bits for
> the
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > errors? What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I don't see anything like
> 'AdditionalTransferError'
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocol code. Shouldn't it also support reporting
> > > > > additional
> > > > > > error
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information to the user?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also created PRs for your edk2/edk2-platforms
> > > forks
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > things that I've found today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> platforms/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM Konstantin
> Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking more about it and I think the right
> > > > > solution
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to move these checks to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EDKII_PLDM_SMBIOS_TRANSFER_PROTOCOL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (i.e. https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Univ
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > ersal/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe/PldmSmbiosTransferDxe.c)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because only the PldmSmbios protocol code
> should
> > > > > know
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as expected response sizes for its commands.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:19 PM Konstantin
> > > Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I see that the 'PldmProtocolCommon' code
> > > > > contains
> > > > > > array
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected response sizes for every supported
> PLDM
> > > > > > command:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure that we should have this, since we
> > > don't
> > > > > > need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP response size apriori.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This only limits allowed PLDM commands to the
> > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > array:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/5af7ca1555863288bd2887ca465ad07d74b9868e/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L261
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This means that right now I can't execute my
> simple
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'GetPLDMTypes'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > command through the 'PldmSubmit' protocol
> > > > > function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 12:55 PM Konstantin
> > > > > Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we update the PLDM protocol's
> > > > > > 'PldmSubmit'
> > > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > receive 'MctpSrcEID'/'MctpDestEID' as
> incoming
> > > > > > parameters?
> > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add some 'PldmInit' function to set those
> > > parameters
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > communication?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because right now the MCTP EIDs are fixed to
> > > PCDs
> > > > > > with no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > flexibility
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/tianocore/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/d6e36a151ff8365cdc55a6914cc5e6138d5788dc/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/PldmProtocol/Common/PldmProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L121
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM Chang, Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: discuss@edk2.groups.io
> > > > > > <discuss@edk2.groups.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Behalf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev via groups.io
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:57 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are
> > > some
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised your compiler didn't catch
> that
> > > since
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is all
> > > > > > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > syntax errors.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've used your
> > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > directly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah I know why, I forget to rebuild the
> changes
> > > of
> > > > > > both PEC
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EID after I verifying the functionality of IPMI on the
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > KbcCommonLib.c.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do see the build error now and was fixed at
> my
> > > end.
> > > > > > My fault.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the
> > > mailing
> > > > > > list for
> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out,
> with
> > > > > you
> > > > > > as the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev
> mailing
> > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem, I can send a patch to the
> 'edk2-
> > > > > devel'
> > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But before that I think I'll write a test app to
> > > check
> > > > > if
> > > > > > PLDM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocols work correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also earlier I've pointed to a fact that
> > > > > > > > > > 'MctpSourceEndpointId'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpDestinationEndpointId' aren't
> actually
> > > used
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'MctpSubmitMessage' function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EIDs are always taken from the PCDs:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> platforms/blob/1c8d0d3fa403b47a34667f7f690add7822163111/Features/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtocolCommon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c#L178
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What can we do about that?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah yes, we should update the algorithm, it is
> > > done
> > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/changab/edk2-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platforms/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE. You
> have
> > > to
> > > > > > update
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/blob/master/PldmMessage/PldmMessage.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And we also need the fix the typo on edk2,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/changab/edk2/tree/MCTP_OVER_KCS_UPDATE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw, how long do you think I would take
> to
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So as I've described in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are basically 2 approaches for the
> MCTP
> > > > > stack
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > OpenBMC:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) userspace approach (legacy, shouldn't
> be
> > > > > really
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > > > now)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) kernel approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is hard to tell if OpenBMC patches for the
> (1)
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merged. Since I've developed the Linux
> kernel
> > > > > driver
> > > > > > (2)
> > > > > > > > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cares about (1).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) there are a couple of OpenBMC
> > > > > patches
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > helped
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > develop, but I'm just a coathor in them. So
> it is
> > > > > hard
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > me to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tell
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when they would be merged. For me it
> looks
> > > like
> > > > > > they are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ready:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 66591: transport: af-mctp: Add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pldm_transport_af_mctp_bind() |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/libpldm/+/66591
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 63652: pldm: Convert to using libpldm
> > > transport
> > > > > > APIs |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/pldm/+/63652
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the (2) I also need to push the mctp
> Linux
> > > > > kernel
> > > > > > driver
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > upstream.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux kernel development is not what I do
> > > every
> > > > > > day, so
> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > how long it would take. But I'm pretty
> > > determined
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > finish
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and push my driver upstream. Currently
> there
> > > are
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding Linux KCS subsystem, so along
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > KCS
> > > > > > > > > > > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > creator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have to figure out how to rewrite the
> > > > > > subsystem
> > > > > > > > > > correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can take some time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After the code is pushed to the
> torvalds/linux,
> > > it
> > > > > > would be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > picked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the openbmc/linux automatically.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I got it. Thanks for the detailed
> information.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 7:12 PM Chang,
> > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AMD Official Use Only - General]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is great, and I'm surprised there are
> > > some
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > errors
> > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > end.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you think we just send it to the
> > > mailing
> > > > > > list for
> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > working on other problems based on it.?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please send the patches out,
> with
> > > > > you
> > > > > > as the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > author
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coauthor?  I will review it again on dev
> mailing
> > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will take a look on kernal change. Btw,
> how
> > > long
> > > > > > do you
> > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to merge your changes on openBMC?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get Outlook for Android
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023
> 11:59:16
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Chang, Abner
> <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: devel@edk2.groups.io
> > > > > > <devel@edk2.groups.io>;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss@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!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There were a couple of trivial compilation
> > > errors,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fixed them everything seems to work
> fine!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just in case I've tested the OpenBMC side
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > mctp
> > > > > > > > > > > > Linux
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > driver approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > (https://github.com/Kostr/PLDM/tree/master/mctp-
> > > > > > > > > > > > kernel)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The latest kernel patches can be found
> here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231003131505.337-1-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aladyshev22@gmail.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is a fix for the build errors that I've
> > > found:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 79501d27aa..345c6da81a 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProtoc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > olCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Common/MctpProto
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > colCommon.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
> > > > > > > > > > SetupMctpRequestTransportPacket
> > > > > > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      // Generate PEC follow SMBUS 2.0
> > > > > > specification.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -    *MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > > > > > > > > > > > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> > > > > > > > > > ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +    MctpKcsTrailer->Pec =
> > > > > > > > > > HelperManageabilityGenerateCrc8
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> (MCTP_KCS_PACKET_ERROR_CODE_POLY, 0,
> > > > > > > > > > ThisPackage,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MctpKcsHeader->ByteCount);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBody        = (UINT8
> *)ThisPackage;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketBodySize    = MctpKcsHeader-
> > > > > > >ByteCount;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      *PacketTrailer     =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > (MANAGEABILITY_TRANSPORT_TRAILER)MctpKcsTrailer;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 863b8d471c..247d032b9b
> 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> a/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> b/Features/ManageabilityPkg/Universal/MctpProtocol/Dxe/MctpProtocol.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -79,17 +79,17 @@
> > > MctpSubmitMessage (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -  // Chec source EID and destination EDI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  // Check source EID and destination EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    //
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpSourceEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID) &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpSourceEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The
> value
> > > of
> > > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reserved.\n", func,
> > > MctpSourceEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >    if ((MctpDestinationEndpointId >=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_START_ID)
> &&
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -       MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +      (MctpDestinationEndpointId <=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MCTP_RESERVED_ENDPOINT_END_ID)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >        ) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      DEBUG ((DEBUG_ERROR, "%a: The
> value
> > > of
> > > > > > MCTP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > destination
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > EID
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (%x)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is reserved.\n", func,
> > > > > > MctpDestinationEndpointId));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >      return EFI_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Konstantin Aladyshev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 2:52 PM Chang,
> > > Abner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Abner.Chang@amd.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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
> > > > > > > > > > <aladyshev22@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023
> 2:18
> > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 (#109881): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/109881
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-