Chassis reset

[Ed Tanous]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:21 PM Patrick Williams <patrick at stwcx.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:26:58PM -0700, Ed Tanous wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:10 PM Patrick Williams <patrick at stwcx.xyz> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 05:45:51AM +0000, Vijay Khemka wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes I have 2 chassis instance xyz/openbmc_project/chassis0 and xyz/openbmc_project/chassis_system0.
> > > > Later one is used for AC reset.
> > >
> > > Can we do a query to see if 'chassis_system0' exists and use it first
> > > and then 'chassis0' if not?
> >
> > I don't think it's that simple.  The way the dbus APIs are defined,
> > one Redfish chassis needs to call the chassis0 path, the other needs
> > to call the chassis_system0 path.  We'd need a way to key off which
> > one is which.  I haven't seen any entity-manager configs get checked
> > in for a "multinode chassis" entity type, so whatever interface we use
> > to describe that will probably be what we need to key off to make that
> > path distinction.
>
> In Redfish this would be the system path that maps to chassis_system0
> and not the chassis path.  In Redfish today, chassis doesn't do a whole
> lot except allow you to power cycle the host.  Most of the control is in
> System.

The way Vijay describes it, it's resetting the Chassis (ie, removing
power from the board itself).  The redfish System resource is meant to
model the host, and shouldn't be resetting the BMC.  Maybe I
misunderstood, and this is actually just a host reset?

>
> >
> > >
> > > I think we need to do some enhancement to x86-power-control though also
> > > to only create this 'chassis_system0' object if configured.  I believe
> > > the current code change you did does it always, even if the
> > > systemd-target is empty.
> >
> > I keep getting the feeling that xyz/openbmc_project/chassis_system0 is
> > just overloading what /xyz/openbmc_project/chassis0 is intended to do,
> > x86-power-control just had that already defined, so we went another
> > direction.  I wonder if we just need to make the "Can I do a real AC
> > reset" configurable, and have it change the behavior of
> > /xyz/openbmc_project/chassis0 in that case.
>
> No, these are not overloading each other.  They are vastly different.
>
> host0 + chassis0 make up the 'BIOS/OS control' and '12V power on rails'
> portions of host power control respectively.

Right, I think what I was saying is that we need a mode where chassis0
is freed from host control, and that would simplify the problem a bit,
as the chassis0 api would just do the "right" thing for the platform.
If the platform is capable of an AC reset, do that, if it's not, do a
host reset as x86-power-control currently does.

>  chassis_system0 controls the
> '12v + 5V standby rails' part of the system.  In my opinion, it should
> only be present when a system actually allows manipulation of the
> standby power, but that isn't how it is currently implemented.

Sure, that seems like a fine way to model it, but then we need to come
up with an API to "steer" the Redfish API to the right resource so we
don't break backward compatibility for the things that work today.
That seems harder, and more error prone, but could certainly be
defined.  Whether that shows up as chassis0, or we just redirect to
host0 if chassis0 doesn't exist seems fine to me.

If I can clarify what you're proposing.

host0 controls the host.
chassis0 also controls the host.
chassis_system0 controls the chassis power unit.

>
> > Also, I'll reiterate that a chassis reset really should be going in a
> > separate repo/application from x86-power-control.  x86-power-control
> > should be focused on managing the host.
>
> No disagreement from me; that was my recommendation originally.  But,
> the current implementation landed there and was accepted by the
> maintainer.  I don't honestly think that matters much at a "how should
> Redfish APIs map to these dbus objects" perspective though, which is the
> current discussion.

Fair point, although I suspect that the maintainers platform isn't
capable of this kind of reset.  We can table that discussion for the
moment.

>
> --
> Patrick Williams