[Nut-upsdev] Megatec driver status [was: Re: UPS (Megatec) with strange voltage values]

[Carlos Rodrigues]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Arjen de Korte <nut+devel at de-korte.org> wrote:
> Citeren Carlos Rodrigues <cefrodrigues at gmail.com>:
>
>> 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?

-- 
Carlos Rodrigues