If we can integrate the drivers, this would be fine with me.
I can not disclose the documentation I received, as I had to promise to
keep it secret, sadly. It is annoying, I know.
The basic differences in protocol are:
There is no "I" command, but a "FW?" command to request firmware
version. "Q1" and "F" are there.
The main reason I wanted support for the Zinto UPS was to be able to
configure it. There are several settings to configure:
- ups.start.auto: Auto-Start after back online, boolean "AR0", "AR1",
request current setting with "AR?", response will be "AR0" or "AR1".
- ups.test.auto: Enable or disable automatic selftest, command "ATx",
same as "ARx" above.
- battery.energysave: Turn off load when on battery and load is very
small, command "GRx", same as "ARx" above.
- battery.discharge.longtime: Configure UPS to longtime discharge (small
load for long duration), command "SDx", same as "ARx" above. "SD1" means
standard, "SD0" means long time discharge.
- input.sensitivity: Configure trigger points for low/high input
voltages. Command "IPx", where "x" is "N", "W", "G", or "?" for
normal, wide, generator input and "?" to request current setting.
- output.voltage.nominal: Configure output voltage when running on
battery. Command "Vxxx" where "xxx" is 220, 230, 240 or 110, 120, 127.
This setting is echoed back in the "F" command.
If we can design a probing scheme to detect the "FW?" command maybe and
add these settings to the blazer driver, I'd agree to integrate the code.
Cheers,
Eddie
On 06/06/11 23:04, Arjen de Korte wrote:
Citeren Arnaud Quette <[email protected]>:
I have received documentation about the protocol of the Zinto A UPSs by
Online USV-Systeme and wrote a driver to monitor and configure my
UPS. This
is based heavily on the blazer driver,
Arjen, the blazer* author, will probably jump on this thread when he has
some spare time.
Indeed... :-)
In order to help, you should identify the differences that made you
choose
this driver as a base.
I had a quick look at the patch and agree with the above. This is almost
identical to the existing blazer_ser and blazer_usb drivers. The only
things that looked different where some additional commands and
settings. This can be integrated in the existing blazer.c module easily
with the addition of a driver flag.
As it is, this patch is not acceptable to me, since it duplicates *way*
too much code. Another problem is the addition of new variables, which
immediately raises a red flag. This necessity to do this needs to be
discussed first. From the naming, it looks like we already have
something similar.
If the original poster can give me some hints on what the format of the
additional commands is (preferably by disclosing the documentation), I'd
be happy to add this to the driver (I'm not going to extract this from
the submitted code).
Best regards, Arjen
--
___________________________________________________brainaid_____________
Christian "Eddie" Dost phone +32 4 2900870
Rue des Raines 13 cell +32 484 469677
4800 Verviers cell +49 1577 6655034
[email protected] Belgium voip +49 241 56529787
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
