All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Heyi Guo <guoheyi@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Ed Tanous <edtanous@google.com>
Cc: openbmc <openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: Does it make sense to create a centralized fan control module?
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2021 16:48:59 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2badabf6-1b45-f32d-856d-fe4023577ca7@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-KxBJkBA1G6J5iMJ8nPEaX6qbO0qQGQ4ujhZ-TrZPjAS7oQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for your comments; that sounds reasonable.

Heyi

On 2021/6/17 上午12:26, Ed Tanous wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 6:19 PM Heyi Guo <guoheyi@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Right now fan related data like tacho and PWM is fetched in
>> dbus-sensors, and published to d-bus as sensor data, while fan control
>> is made in another module like pid-control, which can fetch data and set
>> value via d-bus.
>>
>> In some common sense, we may think about putting all fan related work
>> into one single module (which may be based on pid-control), i.e. it can
>> read tacho and PWM from hardware directly, calculate the required PWM by
>> some algorithm like PID, and then write to PWM hardware directly; the
>> data will also be published to d-bus for other modules to consume, like
>> fansensor from dbus-sensors.
>>
> To some extent, this design revolves around flexibility.  Fans aren't
> necessarily tacho devices, and sensors aren't necessarily hwmon devices, so
> dbus is used as an abstraction to be able to make them all look the same.
> For example, an NCSI NIC might have both a temperature and a fan that
> phosphor-pid-control might want to control, but we don't want
> phosphor-pid-control to take a dependency on NCSI.  While we could put all
> code for all possible sensor types into one daemon, that opens us up to the
> possibility that crashes could take down all of fan and thermal control,
> including the failsafe behavior.  That would be an issue.
>
> It might be possible to handle these issues in a single daemon, but I
> haven't really seen a design that covered all the cases;  Most
> implementations tend to take the simple approach (hwmon sensor + tacho
> device) and ignore the more complex setups.
>
>
>> Does it make sense to do that? Or is there any reason for the current
>> design?
>>
>> I'm new to OpenBMC and some of my understanding may be totally wrong.
>>
>> Looking forward to your expert advice.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Heyi
>>
>>

      reply	other threads:[~2021-06-20  8:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-11  1:14 Heyi Guo
2021-06-11  1:23 ` Heyi Guo
2021-06-16  2:02   ` Heyi Guo
2021-06-16  2:49     ` [Phishing Risk] [External] " John Wang
2021-06-16 11:03       ` Heyi Guo
2021-06-16 16:26 ` Ed Tanous
2021-06-20  8:48   ` Heyi Guo [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2badabf6-1b45-f32d-856d-fe4023577ca7@linux.alibaba.com \
    --to=guoheyi@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=edtanous@google.com \
    --cc=openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --subject='Re: Does it make sense to create a centralized fan control module?' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.