<div dir="ltr"><i>I appreciate both of your prompt responses</i>!<div><br></div><div> As you suspected, this does appear to likely be the same issue as the actual value returned for UPS.Output.Voltage = <b>79</b> (hex) / 121 (decimal) :<br><div><br></div><div><font face="monospace">0.264668 Entering libusb_get_report<br> 0.266012 Report[get]: (3 bytes) => 12 <b>79</b> 00<br> 0.266090 PhyMax = 0, PhyMin = 0, LogMax = 135, LogMin = 129<br> 0.266143 Unit = 00f0d121, UnitExp = 7<br> 0.266194 Exponent = 0<br> 0.266247 hid_lookup_path: 00840004 -> UPS<br> 0.266302 hid_lookup_path: 0084001c -> Output<br> 0.266356 hid_lookup_path: 00840030 -> Voltage<br> 0.266414 Path: UPS.Output.Voltage, Type: Feature, ReportID: 0x12, Offset: 0, Size: 16, Value: 129<br></font></div><div><br></div><div>I've also attached copies of both the relevant lsusb verbose output as well as the usbhid-ups debug output.</div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:44 AM Dave Williams <<a href="mailto:dave@opensourcesolutions.co.uk">dave@opensourcesolutions.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Running the driver in debug mode with -DDDD for 20 seconds or so should<br>
provide enough information to determine if the bug is the same as I<br>
fixed in the patches Charles mentioned. The only other thing that would<br>
be needed is the USB ID because the patch restricted the fix only to the<br>
models suffered from it. <br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
On 22:44, Tue 08 Mar 22, Charles Lepple via Nut-upsuser wrote:<br>
> The patch has been merged into the main Git branch, as mentioned here: <a href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/439" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/439</a> <<a href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/439" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/439</a>> (also suggests why the CP1500... doesn't exhibit the problem)<br>
> <br>
> but a new release is still in the works: <a href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/1263" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/1263</a> <<a href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/1263" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/1263</a>><br>
> <br>
> For reference, CPS UPSes have their own issue tag/label in GitHub, which can help when looking for problems and patches: <a href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22CyberPower+%28CPS%29%22" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22CyberPower+%28CPS%29%22</a> <<a href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:%22CyberPower+(CPS)%22" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues?q=is:issue+is:open+label:%22CyberPower+(CPS)%22</a>><br>
> <br>
> -- <br>
> Charles Lepple<br>
> clepple@gmail<br>
> <br>
> > On Mar 8, 2022, at 7:04 PM, James N. Grace via Nut-upsuser <<a href="mailto:nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net" target="_blank">nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > nut 2.7.4<br>
> > Ubuntu Linux 21.10<br>
> > CyberPower CP1500AVRLCD<br>
> > CyberPower AVRG900LCD<br>
> > <br>
> > The CyberPower CP1500AVRLCD UPS indicates the expected output.voltage value of 120.0 VAC.<br>
> > The CyberPower AVRG900LCD UPS indicates unexpected output voltage values of 130.0 to 139.0 VAC.<br>
> > Note that input.voltage values fluctuate between 119.0 to 121.0 VAC on both models (as expected).<br>
> > <br>
> > Searching the mailing-list archives, it looks like various other CyberPower UPS models are reporting similar (incorrect) output.voltage values (e.g. <a href="https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/2015-December/010020.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/2015-December/010020.html</a> <<a href="https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/2015-December/010020.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/nut-upsuser/2015-December/010020.html</a>>) but I just want to verify that there isn't a patch and/or configuration adjustment required for the AVRG900LCD model.<br>
> > <br>
> > Thanks in advance for your time + effort...<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Nut-upsuser mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net" target="_blank">Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net</a><br>
> > <a href="https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Nut-upsuser mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net" target="_blank">Nut-upsuser@alioth-lists.debian.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>