Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Supports multiple fail-safe modes #41

Open
averyzlyang opened this issue Oct 17, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Supports multiple fail-safe modes #41

averyzlyang opened this issue Oct 17, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@averyzlyang
Copy link

The fan can have many different multiple failsafe values ​​(PWM) depending on different failsafe mode conditions
Example:
Case 1: When any fan fails, fan PWM is set to 100%.
Case 2: When some temperature sensors cannot be read, the fan PWM is set to 80%.
Case 3: Fan PWM set to 90% under other fault conditions

@Krellan
Copy link
Member

Krellan commented Oct 31, 2023

This is a good idea.

If we can enumerate all the desired failsafe conditions, that will help. All of these will be optional (user can configure them if necessary for their platform).

If more than one of these failsafe conditions is true at the same time, then a simple rule applies: take the maximum PWM of all those that are true, and use that maximum. This will disambiguate.

@harveyquta
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, I commit a PR to let failsafe duty more mutable. Does it meet your requirements?
https://gerrit.openbmc.org/c/openbmc/phosphor-pid-control/+/67566

@Krellan
Copy link
Member

Krellan commented Jan 9, 2024

This is a good idea, to allow each individual PID loop to set its own desired failure PWM percentage value. This would be optional, and if not set, the traditional zone-wide failure PWM value would still be applied. So, when a failure happens to any PID loop that doesn't have an individual PWM value set, the zone will still go into failsafe, using the zone-wide PWM value for failsafe.

However, this good idea does not really correspond with the initial comment from October 16 above. It is but one piece of the puzzle. More work will still be required, to implement the criteria in that comment from October 16 above.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants