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

["Chang, Abner via groups.io" <abner.chang=amd.com@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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-