Hi Carlos, 2008/10/20 Carlos Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Arjen de Korte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Citeren Carlos Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> BTW, the patch has a small typo in one of the comments: "applied to >>> battery.volage" :) >> >> I'll leave that up to you to correct. Since it is only a comment, it won't >> be visible to innocent users anyway. :-) >> >> What we might want to do, is to change the multiplier based on the >> information we already have. Looking at the BatteryVolts_t structure, it >> looks like there are some models for which we can preset a multiplier. One >> of them even reports a wrong nominal battery voltage (12V instead of 24V), >> we might even correct that. > > Now, I think I should take the opportunity to ask if any of the people > reading this list is willing to help test the megatec driver, or even > take maintainership of it. > > For a while now I've been using a virtual machine to test changes to > the driver, but now I don't have a machine with a serial port anymore, > so I'm unable to test with real hardware (even from inside a VM). I > could, of course, buy myself a usb-to-serial converter, but must say > I've been lacking time as of late so, after ~5 years maintaining this > driver (~3 years inside NUT mainline, thanks guys) I guess it's time > to pass it on to someone else. > > The megatec driver is pretty much a done deal, all the new stuff > should happen in the megatec_usb driver (for which I'm not the > maintainer). I guess whomever picks up official maintainership of this > driver could also pick up megatec proper. It makes sense, for me at > least. > > There are still some small things pending in megatec however, that I > can do myself provided someone helps testing with real hardware: > > 1) Adding another parameter to set the pace for serial communications > (see the thread mentioned in the subject); > 2) Mark the Battvolts_t structure as deprecated/legacy and add the > battvolts values for the UPSes listed in the comments to the > compatibility list (I don't think this structure should be changed > going forward, it is only useful for a small number of users, totaly > useless for the majority of users, and confusing for the rest); > 3) Adding some more models to the compatibility list (I have one or > two pending). > > So, nothing special. I'll drop a patch to the list instead of > commiting immediately, since I don't like commiting untested stuff > (even if they look simple at a glance). > > Any comments?
first, thanks for taking the time to clarify the situation. and also for all your hard work during all these years. I recall that the initial megatec creation was something hard, and I had to bother you a lot on this. But the results are there, and it has greatly simplified the drivers list. @Alex and Jon: what do you think about Carlos proposition? thanks, Arnaud -- Linux / Unix Expert R&D - MGE Office Protection Systems - http://www.mgeops.com Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader - http://www.networkupstools.org/ Debian Developer - http://people.debian.org/~aquette/ Free Software Developer - http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/ _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
