[Nut-upsdev] UPS driver for Online USV-Systeme Zinto A

[Christian "Eddie" Dost]

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 <aquette.dev at gmail.com>:
>
>>> 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
ecd at brainaid.de             Belgium                voip +49 241 56529787