PSU Sensors - Associations

[James Feist]

On 10/23/19 10:52 AM, Patrick Venture wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:50 AM James Feist
> <james.feist at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/23/19 10:37 AM, Patrick Venture wrote:
>>> So, I flipped the association interface addition and the property
>>> initialization to match other sensors, and then it started working.  I
>>> was curious if you had any suggestions on how to find the matching
>>> sensor given the paths, for instance:
>>>
>>> busctl get-property xyz.openbmc_project.PSUSensor
>>> /xyz/openbmc_project/sensors/temperature/alt2_Temperature
>>> xyz.openbmc_project.Association.Definitions Associations
>>> a(sss) 1 "chassis" "all_sensors"
>>> "/xyz/openbmc_project/inventory/system/board/Altie"
>>>
>>> busctl tree --no-pager xyz.openbmc_project.EntityManager|grep Altie
>>>             |-/xyz/openbmc_project/inventory/system/board/Altie
>>>             | |-/xyz/openbmc_project/inventory/system/board/Altie/al_temp_0
>>>             | |-/xyz/openbmc_project/inventory/system/board/Altie/al_temp_1
>>>             | |-/xyz/openbmc_project/inventory/system/board/Altie/al_temp_2
>>>             | `-/xyz/openbmc_project/inventory/system/board/Altie/alt1
>>>
>>> No alt2 -- so how do I know this?  I can walk every subordinate object
>>> to find the name match, but I was curious if you had a faster idea?
>>
>> So for the associations you should generally not look at the definition,
>> the definition is primarily for the mapper. You should be looking in the
>> mapper for the association that matches the sensor name that you care
>> about and it should point back to the configuration. If there are not
>> associations for each of the sub-sensors, there should be.
> 
> I must have looked at the wrong entry there because I didn't see
> anything pointing back to the sensor config entry, but just the sensor
> itself.  I'll take a look now, the PSU sensor naming issue is
> identical to the one if there is just another name available or the
> Pwm case.

Ah you're right, I don't that that is implemented. Should we create a 
new association for this? It seems useful.

>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Patrick
>>>