OpenWrt Forum Archive

Topic: Improve the Wiki Table of Hardware?

The content of this topic has been archived between 12 Sep 2015 and 6 May 2018. Unfortunately there are posts – most likely complete pages – missing.

Looking good so far!

Some exceptions:
1) arcadyanastoria_arcadyanvgv7510kw22 o2box6431: I cleaned up the 2nd arcadyan in the toh. The space before o2box needs to be eliminated.
2) We might have a double: arcadyanastoria_o2box6431 (WIP)

Yes, it was a duplicate. I deleted the WIP.
And the space was a \\ in the device name on the wiki, that ended up looking like a space. I fixed the name in the wiki.

Perhaps I need to make a validating regexp that checks that all names are good. We'll see if it is needed.

I started on my effort to update the detail pages for Netgear WNDR3700 & WNDR3800. It's fussy/finicky work to create the dataentry's manually (for testing). I know that we'll have a script to automatically create dataentry's for the existing devices, but I wonder if we can make it easier for people who want to add new routers.

Specifically, I would like to find a way to guide people to use our templates (both for the details page as well as the dataentry). I know they can copy/paste both the dataentry template and the detail page entry, but I bet that'll be hit or miss...

After we finalize both those templates, I would like to have a facility whereby we can make it trivial for people to:

1) Click a button to create a new page (dataentry or detail template) in the proper namespace
2) Have that page set up/initialized with default information/markup

Is there a way to do this in Dokuwiki?

richbhanover wrote:

After we finalize both those templates, I would like to have a facility whereby we can make it trivial for people to:

1) Click a button to create a new page (dataentry or detail template) in the proper namespace
2) Have that page set up/initialized with default information/markup

Is there a way to do this in Dokuwiki?

Regarding dataentry pages: Yes, see https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php … 25#p278025

https://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:bureaucracy

zo0ok wrote:

And then there are devices under
  Allwinner Axx
  Olimex
that looks pretty related, possible duplicates. This "Allwinner Axx" breaks the entire concept of "brand". Allwinner is a Platform rather than a Brand (as we usually use those).

To me those devices look pretty different, i.e. no duplicates (looking only on the available toh data):
Allwinner devices have Target = Sunxi; SoC = AllWinner A1x/A20
Olimex devices have Target = mxs; SoC = Freescale IMX233

https://www.olimex.com/Products/OLinuXi … e-hardware
-> Olinuxino is available with several different SoCs
-> Olinuxinos should be moved from Allwinner to Olimex, since Allwinner is not the brand of this board, but Olimex.

http://www.linksprite.com/?page_id=782 (redirect from http://www.pcduino.com/features/)
-> pcduinos should be moved to Brand = Linksprite

http://www.lemaker.org/
-> Banana Pis should be moved to Lemaker

http://cubieboard.org/
-> Cubieboards should be moved to Brand = Cubieboard (if you can call this a brand)

I just added the column "Brand" to the Allwinner boards.
Not sure if this is 100% correct, but at least something to discuss.

tmo26 wrote:

ATNGW100 -> Brand = Atmel (see http://www.atmel.com/tools/maturengw100 … ykit.aspx)
Netus G20 -> Brand = ACME Systems (see http://eshop.acmesystems.it/?id=NETUSG20)
TQMa9263 -> Brand = TQ-Components (see http://www.tq-group.com/fileadmin/web_d … v.004.pdf)

Fantastic... I intended to turn 2 brands into 1, and now I got 3. Well, at least we agree that "Atmel AT91SAM" is not a brand?

Well, I like the Brand column in the Allwinner table. It breaks my script completely, but on the other hand I dont have to copy-paste in the wiki. As soon as we have migrated everything to data entries this problem goes away. I think I will change the "Vendor" column in "Atmel AT91SAM" to Brand too.

An idea... should we have a Type Of Hardware entry in the entries, for "Router", "Dev Board", "Toaster", "Other"?

tmo26 wrote:
richbhanover wrote:

After we finalize both those templates, I would like to have a facility whereby we can make it trivial for people to:

1) Click a button to create a new page (dataentry or detail template) in the proper namespace
2) Have that page set up/initialized with default information/markup

Is there a way to do this in Dokuwiki?

Regarding dataentry pages: Yes, see https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php … 25#p278025

https://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:bureaucracy

Is the bureaucracy plugin installed in the Dokuwiki? I tried a quick <form>...</form> and didn't get a form on my test page.

And do we need the Captcha plugin as well? (Might want it since it'll be a mostly-open forum.)

(Last edited by richbhanover on 10 Jun 2015, 00:06)

I have now added support for a "Brand" column that overrides the normal brand (to fix the Allwinner and Atmel AT91SAM situation).

I also cleaned up the Brand column in Allwinner: I removed question marks.
So I think the form is good, it looks nice and works nice. What the correct value for the Brand column is for specific devices can be another question. But I think this was good!

@richbhanover: the template thing that you mentioned is very important. I myself was very lazy when i documented the Archer C20i the other day: http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/archer-c20i
I honestly didn't really know what template to use and started copying things from the WDR3600. Not so good of me. I mean, I was more eager to document my findings than to search for a template.

Is this the template to use for now? http://wiki.openwrt.org/meta/template_device

Updated ToH: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … index.html

Edit:  Changed back Brand=Lamobo for Banana Pi R1.

(Last edited by zo0ok on 10 Jun 2015, 00:14)

About: http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/dataentry_template

---- dataentry ----
Data Entry Name      : (name of data entry)
Device Type          : Toaster 
...
Brand                : (D-Link)
Model                : (DIR-509)
Version              : (v0.99)
Status_              : (unsupported)
Supported Since Rev  : (R12345)
...
WikiDevi url         : (URL)

Questions and thoughts:

  • There are occational underscores: do they serve a purpose?

  • url? URL? Url?

  • For forum thread... we occationally have more than one. Are we going to ignore that fact and decide that one is better than none. Or should be move forum link to device page? (for WIP routers without a proper device page this is clearly a useful field)

  • The images... one factory+one sysupgrade... despite it will be a mess when a new release comes out, and some devices have different types of images (like the Raspberry Pi)?

  • Rename "Status" to "OpenWrt Support Status"? or just "Support Status"?

  • Device Type?

All answers are ok with me. I just like to ask before I start coding.

Too late for complete answer, hence only a short one:

Underscores: Sorry, my bad: Some days ago I played around with the template in my demowiki, but forgot the openwrt wiki.
Update done. It is more explicit now regarding this question smile

Forum threads: We can have multiple ones (comma separated; unsure, if other separators are allowed)

Status: Keep Status_ for now. We can easily have different headers in the datatables (just add a headers line to the datatable definition)

Device type: I like the Toaster and add an Espresso machine. smile
Jokes aside: Why not?

zo0ok wrote:

All answers are ok with me. I just like to ask before I start coding.

Good approach. Saves time and hassle afterwards wink

zo0ok wrote:

About: http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/dataentry_template

---- dataentry ----
Data Entry Name      : (name of data entry)
Device Type          : Toaster 
...
Brand                : (D-Link)
Model                : (DIR-509)
Version              : (v0.99)
Status_              : (unsupported)
Supported Since Rev  : (R12345)
...
WikiDevi url         : (URL)

Questions and thoughts:

  • There are occational underscores: do they serve a purpose?

  • url? URL? Url?

  • For forum thread... we occationally have more than one. Are we going to ignore that fact and decide that one is better than none. Or should be move forum link to device page? (for WIP routers without a proper device page this is clearly a useful field)

  • The images... one factory+one sysupgrade... despite it will be a mess when a new release comes out, and some devices have different types of images (like the Raspberry Pi)?

  • Rename "Status" to "OpenWrt Support Status"? or just "Support Status"?

  • Device Type?

All answers are ok with me. I just like to ask before I start coding.

Some thoughts on @zo0ok comments:

  • underscores I added the underscores to the dataentry template the other day. In the dataplugin architecture (see https://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:data ), you can specify fields that permit multiple comma-separated values by adding an "s" to the field name (e.g. Name -> Names). If the name naturally ends in "s", add an underscore (e.g. thickness_ : 1cm) to force it to have a single value.

  • Many of the current template field names end in "s". Is this desired?

  • url? URL? Url?   I would recommend that we remove the "URL" from the field name, since it'll be clear from context that the data is a URL. Therefore: "Forum Topic" (not "Forum Topic URL"), "WikiDevi", "Vendor Device", "Picture", etc.

  • For forum thread...  Yes, allow many comma-separated URLs

  • The images... Two thoughts: a) field name could be "Pictures" and allow multiple URLs; b) If a new release comes out and the picture changes, it would be acceptable (and appropriate) to create a different dataentry

  • Rename "Status_" ... I can live with "Status_"

  • Device Type? Sure, lots of types. But we should recommend a few, something like: "Router, Dev Board, Embedded, or create your own type"

zo0ok wrote:

@richbhanover: the template thing that you mentioned is very important. I myself was very lazy when i documented the Archer C20i the other day: http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tp-link/archer-c20i
I honestly didn't really know what template to use and started copying things from the WDR3600. Not so good of me. I mean, I was more eager to document my findings than to search for a template.

Is this the template to use for now? http://wiki.openwrt.org/meta/template_device

I believe that URL is the current proposal, but I also am quite taken with the Archer C7 v2 device page that it looks as if we all have been working on. (Do we all use the C7?)

I plan to update a couple pages of my own (WNDR3700 & WNDR3800) to examine some alternatives before weighing in on "the one true" presentation.

PS No fear on cloning a details page. It's probably more important to get info into the wiki. But it's also a chance to try a variation of the page.

richbhanover wrote:

Some thoughts on @zo0ok comments:

  • underscores I added the underscores to the dataentry template the other day. In the dataplugin architecture (see https://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:data ), you can specify fields that permit multiple comma-separated values by adding an "s" to the field name (e.g. Name -> Names). If the name naturally ends in "s", add an underscore (e.g. thickness_ : 1cm) to force it to have a single value.

  • Many of the current template field names end in "s". Is this desired?

  • url? URL? Url?   I would recommend that we remove the "URL" from the field name, since it'll be clear from context that the data is a URL. Therefore: "Forum Topic" (not "Forum Topic URL"), "WikiDevi", "Vendor Device", "Picture", etc.

  • For forum thread...  Yes, allow many comma-separated URLs

  • The images... Two thoughts: a) field name could be "Pictures" and allow multiple URLs; b) If a new release comes out and the picture changes, it would be acceptable (and appropriate) to create a different dataentry

  • Rename "Status_" ... I can live with "Status_"

  • Device Type? Sure, lots of types. But we should recommend a few, something like: "Router, Dev Board, Embedded, or create your own type"

Thank you, that explains a lot! I am happy with all your suggestions/recommendations.

Device types: "DSL Modem" or "Cable Modem" would be quite useful, I think.

Not using the C7... perhaps I should add a signature? (wdr3600, wdr4900, archer C20i, wrt54gl, raspberry pi).

Just noticed, that these devices are on the supported page, while Status = No:
Archer C5 AC1200
Archer C7R WDR7500
TL-WR1043ND

I can't find any information that these devices are supported.
Shouldn't they reside on the "unsupported" page?

tmo26 wrote:

Just noticed, that these devices are on the supported page, while Status = No:
Archer C5 AC1200
Archer C7R WDR7500
TL-WR1043ND
I can't find any information that these devices are supported.
Shouldn't they reside on the "unsupported" page?

A year ago there were two such devices: Netgear WNDR 3700 v3 and Linksys WRT1900AC.
In the Netgear case v3 was not supported, while v1, v2 and v4 were supported.
In the WRT1900AC case Linksys (Belkin) had announced the router OpenWrt-compatible, while it was not.
So, in the name of "best interest for the community" those two were listed on the supported page, as unsupported.

In all the above mentioned cases, these are all generally well supported devices, where there is one (the latest) version not being supported. As far as I know:

Archer C5 v2: Very little information available at all, probably not working at all
Archer C7R v3: Very little information available at all, perhaps very similar to v2, and perhaps working
WR1043ND v3: Very little information available. v3 seems to be very similar to v2, but no information available at all. Perhaps the v2 image works perfectly with the c2
WRT1900AC v2: Unclear if this one even exist. And if it does exist, it may be practically identical.

Then you also have the WRT1200AC, which does not exist yet but that is supposed to get OpenWrt support quickly.

Obviously it is "wrong" that they are listed under "supported". But if they are listed under unknown nobody will find them, and people may think that all versions are compatible. This problem will go away when we migrate to the new data entry system.


But I think, and I have been thinking about starting as separate topic about it, a problem is that there is a rumour on the forum about a new virtually unknown version of a device. It gets added, and it is not supported. And it can scare people away from buying the device because they are afraid to get the latest revision. Even if it might not exist.

The WR1043ND v3: Does it exist? Does it work with v2 image? Does it not work?

Updated: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … index.html

The dataentry column now contains link to the generated data entry pages.
It is just a first version, of course. It mostly corresponds to, but no 100%
http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/dataentry_template
Just let me know how you want it changed/improved and I will try to fix.

We are going to need logic handling

Status_                   : supported
Supported Since Rev       : 
Supported Since Rel       : 14.07
Supported Current Rel     : 

...it often gets good now, but not always.

There are also columns not handled yet (like Serial).

Obviously, if you need the 921 text files packed into a tgz, or all of them listed, that is easy.

Good work!

zo0ok wrote:

The dataentry column now contains link to the generated data entry pages.
It is just a first version, of course. It mostly corresponds to, but no 100%
http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/dataentry_template
Just let me know how you want it changed/improved and I will try to fix.

You need to stick to the template here: http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/dataentry_template#usage
The 's' and '_' will have a meaning later on (richb explained the background).
They will show up only in the wikisource, but will not be displayed when the dataentry page is normally viewed.

The permanent note makes me think about modularizing it, in order not to repeat it 921 times in the source.
I think I somewhere read about this... need to search a bit.

zo0ok wrote:

We are going to need logic handling

Status_                   : supported
Supported Since Rev       : 
Supported Since Rel       : 14.07
Supported Current Rel     : 

...it often gets good now, but not always.

What logic do you mean? Do you have examples for "not always"?
I looked at several d-link, tp-link, and other brands pages and they seemed ok to me.

Obviously, if you need the 921 text files packed into a tgz, or all of them listed, that is easy.

Yes, tgz will be needed for import in both my demowiki and openwrt wiki, but first the template needs to be applied ('s', '_', '_url', ...)

By the way, in case you wondered about "factory-img_factory": the _factory is a special way to create short links. see https://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:data#type_aliases

How it works:
Type Alias      Type    Data Prefix    Data Postfix
factory           wiki     [[                  |factory]]
sysupgrade   wiki     [[                  |sysupgrade]]

-> Data marked with _factory or _sysupgrade will be shown as links named "factory" and "sysupgrade".

zo0ok wrote:
tmo26 wrote:

Just noticed, that these devices are on the supported page, while Status = No:
Archer C5 AC1200
Archer C7R WDR7500
TL-WR1043ND
I can't find any information that these devices are supported.
Shouldn't they reside on the "unsupported" page?

A year ago there were two such devices: Netgear WNDR 3700 v3 and Linksys WRT1900AC.
In the Netgear case v3 was not supported, while v1, v2 and v4 were supported.
In the WRT1900AC case Linksys (Belkin) had announced the router OpenWrt-compatible, while it was not.
So, in the name of "best interest for the community" those two were listed on the supported page, as unsupported.

In all the above mentioned cases, these are all generally well supported devices, where there is one (the latest) version not being supported. As far as I know:

Archer C5 v2: Very little information available at all, probably not working at all
Archer C7R v3: Very little information available at all, perhaps very similar to v2, and perhaps working
WR1043ND v3: Very little information available. v3 seems to be very similar to v2, but no information available at all. Perhaps the v2 image works perfectly with the c2
WRT1900AC v2: Unclear if this one even exist. And if it does exist, it may be practically identical.

Then you also have the WRT1200AC, which does not exist yet but that is supposed to get OpenWrt support quickly.

Obviously it is "wrong" that they are listed under "supported". But if they are listed under unknown nobody will find them, and people may think that all versions are compatible. This problem will go away when we migrate to the new data entry system.


But I think, and I have been thinking about starting as separate topic about it, a problem is that there is a rumour on the forum about a new virtually unknown version of a device. It gets added, and it is not supported. And it can scare people away from buying the device because they are afraid to get the latest revision. Even if it might not exist.

The WR1043ND v3: Does it exist? Does it work with v2 image? Does it not work?

The Archer C5 (v1) support works fine. It's identical to the C7 v2 hardware-wise but marketed differently.

The WRT1900AC v2 uses a die shrunk version of the SoC (Armada 385 vs Armada XP), running at a slightly higher clockspeed, which I think no longer requires a fan. It uses firmware labeled "cobra"
https://downloads.openwrt.org/chaos_cal … actory.img

I have seen the WRT1200AC in stores in the USA. It uses the same die shrunk SoC as the WRT1900AC v2, possibly at a lower clockspeed (same as the WRT1900AC v1 though - are we lost yet?). It uses "caiman" firmware:
https://downloads.openwrt.org/chaos_cal … actory.img

Updated: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … index.html

@tmo26: I think I was confused about the answers about _, s and _url, and the way it was used in the template. Now it is (I think) exactly as in the template. If you are happy I am happy. Let me know if/when you want other changes.

@drawz: good to see that someone else is following this topic. Sometimes it makes me worried we are three people in a bubble wink

re: field names in http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/dataentry_template

1) Any thoughts on my suggestion to remove "url" from field names? e.g., change "Forum Topic URL" simply to be "Forum Topic" (The full field name in the template would be "Forum Topic_url : http://...")

2) I'm still confused by the field names in the current template: many of them end in "s" or even "ss" - is this what we intend?

Regarding the field names...
I dont really know. I am equally confused as @richbhanover.

But @tmo26 knows about https://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:bureaucracy
I know nothing about it.

So I do what you tell me.
The good thing is - this is the best time ever to discuss exactly the naming of the fields. There was never a better time in the past, and there will never be in the future. So lets get it quite right. I have patience to change back and forth - dont worry.

richbhanover wrote:

re: field names in http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/dataentry_template

1) Any thoughts on my suggestion to remove "url" from field names? e.g., change "Forum Topic URL" simply to be "Forum Topic" (The full field name in the template would be "Forum Topic_url : http://...")

"Forum Topic URL" is perfect: Even low IQ users will know that an URL is expected here as input, and nothing else.

2) I'm still confused by the field names in the current template: many of them end in "s" or even "ss" - is this what we intend?

Yes, it is.
Keep in mind, that you will see the extra 's' only in the wikisource, not if you normally view the page.

(Last edited by tmo26 on 11 Jun 2015, 21:11)

tmo26 wrote:
richbhanover wrote:

2) I'm still confused by the field names in the current template: many of them end in "s" or even "ss" - is this what we intend?

Yes, it is.
Keep in mind, that you will see the extra 's' only in the wikisource, not if you normally view the page.

In fact, there was one little mistake that I corrected:
WRONG: Antennass (last 's' means: Multiple values allowed)
RIGHT: Antennas_ ('_' means: The 's' belongs to the Antennas and does not mean that multiple values are allowed, i.e. only single values allowed)