D-Bus interface to provide data to entity manager

Deepak Kodihalli dkodihal at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Fri May 29 20:19:01 AEST 2020

On 29/05/20 2:33 pm, Thomaiyar, Richard Marian wrote:
> On 5/29/2020 1:01 PM, Deepak Kodihalli wrote:
>> On 29/05/20 12:47 pm, Thomaiyar, Richard Marian wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2020 10:39 AM, Deepak Kodihalli wrote:
>>>> On 28/05/20 11:35 pm, Patrick Williams wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:12:19PM +0530, Thomaiyar, Richard Marian 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2020 5:54 PM, Deepak Kodihalli wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/05/20 5:33 pm, Patrick Williams wrote:
>>>>>> Why do we need to have 2 different interfaces to represent the same
>>>>>> information for FRU-to-inventory transformational (say 
>>>>>> ProductName). This
>>>>>> will make inventory manager to be updated for every FRU producer?. 
>>>>>> Many of
>>>>>> the properties are common, and we can form a common interface for 
>>>>>> that, and
>>>>>> rest can be maintained in it's specific interface. I understand 
>>>>>> that current
>>>>>> FRU to Entity-manager interface seems to be private, but we must 
>>>>>> make a
>>>>>> common interface to represent like Product Name, PartNumer, Serial 
>>>>>> Number
>>>>>> etc. (instead of maintaining it in different interface saying IPMI 
>>>>>> / PLDM
>>>>>> Source, with different types). How about?
>>>> Richard, I have concerns with this approach. Like I mentioned in one 
>>>> my earlier emails, and Patrick also alludes to below, if you try to 
>>>> make this common (event if it's for a subset of the properties) then 
>>>> you basically arrive at the existing phosphor Inventory interfaces 
>>>> (eg Inventory.Decorator.Asset).
>>>> My question in my earlier mail was, if you do such a thing, then why 
>>>> do you even need inventory producers? FruDevice and PLDM could have 
>>>> hosted inventory on their own. If they still rely on the inventory 
>>>> producers (EM and PIM) with this "common interface" approach, then 
>>>> it's basically re-implementation/duplications of the 
>>>> (Inventory.Decorator.Asset like) interface by two processes.
>> Richard, what is your thought on the re-implementation/duplication 
>> concern above? I'm not sure if you answered that and I missed.
> [Richard]: FRU Consumers must be aware about each and every Format 
> specifically, even though it conveys same meaning.

I agree with that, but my question was about FRU producers.

>>> [Richard]: Basically FRU information (either IPMI/PLDM) is needed for 
>>> the inventory producers to expose configuration, which FRU will not 
>>> have. Say, based on FRU Product name, either we will expose 4 temp 
>>> sensor / 2 (Now along with this one, we need to inform the product 
>>> name through Inventory.Decorator.Asset). Now from Redfish point of 
>>> it, Inventory.Decorator is what it uses. This is what i was asking 
>>> with 2 options in earlier mail (whether to change or stick with it 
>>> (recommended)).
>>>> The idea is for apps like FruDevice and PLDM, which are aware of a 
>>>> specific FRU format, to host data in *that* format, to be consumed 
>>>> *solely* by inventory producers (like EM and PIM).
>>> [Richard]: Yes, but it doesn't need to expose those in that format?
>> Why not?
> [Richard]: What's the advantage in keeping it in that format itself?

The advantage I see is basically what you said on the next line.

> This is used only by EM / PIM, and not by redfish directly right? Where 
> the intelligence must reside in the producer or consumer (With producer, 
> consumers can be in common form)

>>> Say Manufacturer Name, it doesn't mater whether it is coming from 
>>> PLDM FRU / IPMI FRU. Say we have a special handling for a particular 
>>> manufacture / product, then irrespective of inventory producers both 
>>> can handle the same.
>> This is what the Inventory.Decorator.Asset interface is for.
> [Richard]: Yes, That is exposed by EM / PIM in our case. Why EM / PIM 
> must rely on 2 different stuff, for common things is the question here.
>>> If we have 2 different interface, then inventory producer may need to 
>>> be aware about both and probe it accordingly.
>> No, the "FRU" properties producer needs to be concerned only about the 
>> format it understands.
> [Richard]: FRU property producer must know the format and produce the 
> interface with data (in common form as much as possible). E.g. IPMI FRU 
> Producer (say xyz.openbmc_project.FruDevice service) will read device A 
> FRU, and expose the Manufacturer name (It can read the EEPROM content 
> and decode it as per the IPMI FRU format, but the data it produces is 
> Manufacturer name). Simiarly PLDM FRU Producer (say 
> xyz.openbmc_project.PLDM.FruDevice service) will read the data using 
> PLDM FRU commands, and expose the Manufacturer name. Now why this 2 
> service need to have 2 different interface(one from 
> Inventory.Source.PLDM & another from Inventory.Source.IPMI, to expose 
> the Manufacturer name. ? Why Entity manager / PIM need to read the same 
> information from 2 different interface and expose it in 
> Inventory.Decorator.Asset. (It can do it with same interface).

What is that interface?

> What Entity manager / PIM needs to do is using Object Mapper query all the 
> FruDevices (IPMI / PLDM FRU), and accordingly expose the Inventory
>>> FRU producers code must be written in such a way that for these 
>>> common properties it does the necessary conversion (Say make 
>>> manufacturer as string, irrespective of any format it read through). 
>>> Note: Specific stuff, we need to create a separate interface (as 
>>> phosphor-dbus-interface at present doesn't support dynamic property 
>>> addition/deletion). (Tomorrow, if we have any other proprietary way 
>>> of producing FRU data, we can still work with this approach, with 
>>> less or no change for other layers).
>>>> Also note that (as James pointed out in his email), the IPMI FRU 
>>>> format distinguishes Board/Chassis/Product areas. PLDM FRU format 
>>>> does not. So there are differences. If a new FRU format is 
>>>> introduced, then yes we would expect a new interface to show up 
>>>> under Inventory/Source/<FruFormat>
>>> [Richard]: Fru producers should do this conversion.
>> I'm of the opinion that the inventory producer (like EM and PIM) 
>> should perform this conversion. Consider 
>> https://github.com/openbmc/entity-manager/blob/master/configurations/Intel%20Front%20Panel.json#L55 
>> for example. I don't think it's up to the FruDevice/PLDM kind of apps 
>> to decide that this is actually a Panel. You can design it that way, 
>> but like I said above that means the config knowledge moves into these 
>> apps, which I don't think we should head towards, since then every FRU 
>> producer app needs to do this. This is why we have apps like EM.
> [Richard]: Exactly. What we need to make sure is create abstraction 
> between Entity manager and FRU Producers as much as possible. FRU 
> Producer responsibility is to read the FRU in decode the FRU data as per 
> the spec and expose it in common form which Entity-manager / PIM will 
> rely on.

I don't see why the abstraction is necessary. There already is 
abstraction in terms of the phosphor interfaces.

>>> Say Chassis Type (Irrespective of what area it comes from it is 
>>> same). PLDM FRU mostly represents the product as a whole, but 
>>> technically we can point it to all the needed using the Fru Record 
>>> set to the Entity type mapping in the PDR record. Accordingly it 
>>> needs to be exposed.
>>>>> Yes, I am in favor of common interfaces for this where ever possible.
>>>>> Is there someone that knows the existing FruDevice implementation well
>>>>> enough that can be included in this work to propose common interfaces
>>>>> where it is appropriate?
>>>>>> Inventory/Source/General/Fru (Maintain common things here Product 
>>>>>> Name.
>>>>>> This can be used by Inventory manager to advertise it (instead of 
>>>>>> searching
>>>>>> it in multiple interfaces/properties))
>>>>> Minor tweak here of 'Source/Common'?  When we have an existing 
>>>>> Inventory
>>>>> interface for this information should we mimic what is already in
>>>>> Inventory?  At some point are we trying to be too common that we're
>>>>> effectively reimplementing Inventory instances under a different name?
>>> [Richard]: Yes, currently, FRU to inventory and inventory to upper 
>>> layer is what used. If we want to change it, we need to go with 
>>> differnt option of using FRU to upper layer, but many of existing 
>>> code will require change.
>>> Regards,
>>> Richard

More information about the openbmc mailing list