Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix ocmb index value #94

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 16, 2024
Merged

Conversation

deepakala-k
Copy link
Contributor

The ocmb index value is currently the same as that of the OMI index. This number is not unique and it is not easy to map the index number with the inventory path of the dimm. So using the number at the end of the physical path as the index

@@ -672,7 +669,6 @@ enum pdbg_target_status pdbg_target_probe_ody_ocmb(struct pdbg_target *target)
fsi_target->status = PDBG_TARGET_NONEXISTENT;
return PDBG_TARGET_NONEXISTENT;
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should not have removed these spaces

Use pdbg target index for ody targets

The ocmb index number is same as that of omi index number. There is no
mapping between inventory dimm index and the device tree index. Due to
this, it is difficult to find the failing ocmb index to collect the dumps.

To make it easier to identify the ocmb, updating the dev tree ocmb index
calculation to use the physical path number

The explorer chips use fapi position to identify the targets. The
odyssey chip uses target index with the recent change. Updating the code
to support the same.

Test results:
root@p10bmc:/tmp# ecmdquery chips
cage 0
  node 0
    slot 0
      pu
        p[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
      odyssey
        p[62,2,6]

root@p10bmc:/tmp# getscom odyssey 08012400 -all
odyssey k0:n0:s0:p62       0x0008000000000000
odyssey k0:n0:s0:p02       0x0008000000000000
odyssey k0:n0:s0:p06       0x0008000000000000
/usr/bin/edbg getscom odyssey 08012400 -all
@aravynd aravynd merged commit 928eee5 into open-power:master Apr 16, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants