Al, Sensors are being interpreted as analog when they should be discrete, although I think there might also be ms-interpretation in the other direction as well. Even though discrete sensors should not have units, making this assumption is not necessary since the IPMI spec states that the units are identified in "Sensor Units 1".
-- Jim Mankovich | jm...@hp.com -- On 2/21/2012 12:11 PM, Albert Chu wrote: > Hi Jim, > > On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 10:03 -0800, Jim Mank wrote: >> All, >> >> I've been looking a incorrect sensor display issues with the ipmitool >> that I would like >> to get some feedback on before proposing a specific solution. >> 1. ipmitool does not properly decode discrete vrs analog units >> in all cases >> 2. ipmitool does not correctly identify the Threshold Sensor >> class for Compact and >> Full sensors. >> For #1, the IPMI spec states that the sensor units are identified in >> the Full and Compact >> SDR by the setting in the "Sensor Units 1" Field bits [7:6] "Analog >> (numeric) Data Format". >> See the "Sensor Units 1" Field description on pages 522 and 528 of the >> latest IPMI spec. >> The "Sensor Units 1" Field bits [7:6] field is not used in all cases >> by the ipmitool to determine >> discrete vrs analog sensor units. > Discrete sensors technically shouldn't have units. Do you mean that > sensors are being mis-interpreted as discrete when they should be > analog? Or vice versa? > > Al > >> For #2, both the Full and Compact SDR field "Event/Reading Type Code" >> field identifies >> whether or not a Event/Reading type is of class Threshold. This >> field should be used by both >> the Full and Compact sensor display routines to identify that the >> given sensor class is of type >> Threshold. See "Event/Reading Type Code" on pages 519 and 525 of the >> latest IPMI spec >> and Table 42-1 and Table 42-2. >> >> In working through a possible solutions to the above issues, I started >> looking in detail at the >> feasibility of merging ipmi_sdr_print_sensor_compact and >> ipmi_sdr_print_sensor_full into a >> single function. In investigating this, I found a dissimilarity in >> how these two routines treat the >> global output flags, verbose, csv_verbose and sdr_extended. I >> believe these two routines >> should be treating these global output flags in exactly the same way. >> For example, if you specify >> both csv_output and verbose (-c -v) , the full print routine will >> output csv formatted information >> and use more verbose output for certain fields, but, the compact print >> routine will not output >> csv formatted information at all. I think the compact display >> routine should be changed >> to interpret these global output flags in exactly the same was as the >> full display routine does. >> >> Here are the main questions I am looking for some feedback on: >> >> Is my interpretation of the IPMI spec with regard to #1 and #2 >> consistent with other peoples >> understandings? >> >> Can the compact sensor print routine (ipmi_sdr_print_sensor_compact) >> be changed to interpret >> the global output flags in the same way that the full sensor print >> routine interprets them? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> -- >> -- Jim Mankovich | jm...@hp.com -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Ipmitool-devel mailing list Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
