beep code manager for openbmc

[Ren, Zhikui]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patrick Williams <patrick at stwcx.xyz>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 2:18 PM
>To: Ren, Zhikui <zhikui.ren at intel.com>
>Cc: openbmc at lists.ozlabs.org; Brad Bishop <bradleyb at fuzziesquirrel.com>
>Subject: Re: beep code manager for openbmc
>
>On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 03:29:48PM +0000, Ren, Zhikui wrote:
>> >I see it creates dbus interfaces but I don't see them defined
>> >anywhere.  Can we get that added to phosphor-dbus-interfaces?
>> >
>> [Ren, Zhikui] Yes, I will submit a review on that.
>> >It isn't obvious to me from looking at what interfaces are there who
>> >would call it.  I see various "beep code" patterns:
>> >
>> >    {beepVRWatchdogTimeout, "1-5-1-2"}, {beepPSUFailure, "1-5-1-4"},
>> >    {beepCPUMIssing, "1-5-2-1"},        {beepCPUCatError, "1-5-2-2"},
>> >    {beepCPUErr2, "1-5-2-3"},           {beepVoltageMismatch, "1-5-2-4"},
>> >    {beepCPUConfigError, "1-5-2-5"},    {beepPowerFail, "1-5-4-2"},
>> >    {beepPowerGoodTimeOut, "1-5-4-4"},
>> >
>> >How do these get triggered?  Do arbitrary programs call into the
>"BeepCode"
>> >service when they hit their own event?  This doesn't seem very
>> >maintainable; shouldn't the beepcode service react to events through
>> >some other method, similar to what is going on for Redfish events?
>> >
>> [Ren, Zhikui] Currently, an application can call into the BeepCode by
>> calling the dbus method One of improvement ideas is to make the
>beepcode service monitor the events it is interested in.
>
>Fundamentally, I see this as a very poor design.  I don't really like us taking
>code written in isolation without any design feedback and then expecting the
>project to pick it up as-is.
>
>We already have REDFISH_MESSAGE_ID and IPMI_SEL_* journal strings, a
>proposal for audit, and now this beepcode proposal, which are all a type of
>event.  The current design proposals for all of them is that every application
>needs to be aware of every consumer and make N random function calls to
>each of those consumers.  It is sloppy and doesn't scale.  I don't want to add to
>the mess by adding beepcodes this way.
>
>I'm slowly working on unraveling this by adding an Event concept to phosphor-
>logging (distinct from the current Error concepts).  I'm hopeful that this can be
>leveraged for any such event, including boot sequence states that can be
>consumed by this beepcode application.  I should have the initial design within
>a week or two and would certainly welcome any review (with respect to beep
>code) and assistance in implementation.
>
[Ren, Zhikui] Looking forward to see the review.

>> >How easily configurable would this be for someone who has a different
>> >beepcode policy than Intel's?  Are you planning to update it with
>> >some JSON config or leave that as an exercise for the next user?
>> >
>> [Ren, Zhikui] Good idea.  However I don't have a definitive plan on that
>currently and open to suggestions/collaborations.
>
>Another reason why we shouldn't just take wholesale code that was written
>and designed in isolation but isn't really fit for anyone else's purposes.
>
[Ren, Zhikui] Getting feedbacks from the community was the intention of this email chain.
We have some ideas how to improve the current design and make it more flexible.
I will start working on a design review next. 
>--
>Patrick Williams