Good. This data will disappear next time we run the "import". If you want to add permanent data, also do it the old way here: http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/start#pc_engines. You can compare the experiences.

Well, the official releases are the ones here: https://downloads.openwrt.org/ (except the current RC3). Also see my comment #795 from yesterday.

I think x86_64 used to be its own target under trunk, but that is clearly not the case anymore. See: https://downloads.openwrt.org/chaos_cal … -rc3/x86/. I think this has changed quite recently (perhaps with 15.05RC1) and it would not surprise me if it changes again.

Are you referring to the differences between EMT-64 (Intel) and AMD64 (AMD)? I dont know either. As far as I know, for OpenWrt purposes the significant difference is between x86 (x86/generic) and x84_64 (x86/64).

Good! @tmo26, can you add it? @RangerZ: do all PC Engines devices use Coreboot? In that case I can make sure it gets right at next import.

Good! I believe we should add "CF" and "mSATA" as options (@tmo26). I dont really know what USB(APU) means here.

Well... the format of ethernet has changed quite much lately. The standard thing has been to use '-' for "no such hardware/feature", that is why it says - rather than 0. When it comes to detachable antennas we allow both. The most important thing is that we are consistent, I think.

I think this is just they way DokuWiki wants links to itself to be written.

Ok. This one has not received much attention. I am not sure myself how to upload compatible pictures to the right URL.

This is a standard Wiki feature (found also in MediaWiki), and it most often does not make any sense. It has no significant meaning.

It is on the same lines for me... try CTRL+(minus) and see if it looks better. It would probably require a css-change to fix this, and I suggest putting priority on more important things.

@RangerZ: thanks for your input. As you see it is needed and there are little mistakes here and there. And things to discuss. The current situation is that we need to update the old wiki (5 pages): http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/start to get persistent changes. Then I need to maintain and run a script regularly to maintain: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … ndex.html. There each devices has a Data Entry which contains cleansed data that will go into the "future" wiki. These Data Entries have been imported exactly once, and we are waiting for it to happen again. Even though the future wiki is not perfect, it would be very nice to consider it good enough quite soon, so we can stop this double book keeping and script running. This will require some user feedback and quality testing - like what you contribute with here.

I made a new update, usual links:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … index.html
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … ikitxt.tgz

I think we have a USB-problem...
We have now a multi-choice dropdown for nice 2.0 and 3.0 USB ports.
We used to have a UBS Comment field where stuff could go:

3         1x 2.0, 1x µUSB (charging)
2         1x 2.0 (unpowered)
2         2x external + 2x internal
2         1x 2.0 internal
2         2x 2.0 Host, 1x 2.0 Device
2         1.1 (client/host)
1         Yes (header)
1         1 Host & 1 USB Console
1         2x USB3.0, 1x eSATA
1         1x Header, unpowered
1         1x 2.0, 1x µUSB (charging), 1x power only (2A)
1         1x 1.1 Host, 1x Device
1         USB=Power only

I think this information is just lost now... and we still have a network comment field for the same purpose.
Should we have a USB comment field?
Or should we have a common USB/Network comment field (like port comment field)?
Or have I just missunderstood something?

Done!

CF + mSATA added as well.

(Last edited by tmo26 on 2 Aug 2015, 09:41)

Normally, when you edit wiki pages, a new revision of that page is saved, in order to be able to later see what changes have been done in this new revision and perhaps revert them.

When checking "Minor changes", no new revision is created, but instead, the old revision is being overwritten. No chance to see the changes of this edit, no chance to revert them.

"Minor changes" are meant to be for small corrections only (typo corrections, interpunctuation, ...).

Yes, this needs some small css adaptions. Also the complete width of the dataentry is too small and should be enlarged via css. I will tell jow how to do it, it's only 2mins work.

@zo0ok: Thanks for the update! I just emailed jow to import it into the wiki.

Hmmm... why do you think so?

http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/hwdata/tp-l … tl-mr10u_1 -> 1x 2.0, 1x µUSB (charging) is present
Havn't checked all the rest, maybe there's really something missing.

Current valid values for this usbmultiselect:
¿, -, Yes, 1x 1.1, 1x 1.1 Device, 1x 2.0, 1x 2.0 Device, 2x 2.0, 3x 2.0, 4x 2.0, 5x 2.0, 6x 2.0, more than 6x 2.0, 1x 3.0, 2x 3.0, 3x 3.0, 4x 3.0, 5x 3.0, 6x 3.0, more than 6x 3.0, Mod, 1x Device, 1x Header, 1x OTG, 1x µUSB (charging), 1x Power only

Note: "Host" not shown, since assumed to be the default. "Device" explicitly stated.

Not sure if you misunderstood... maybe the valid values shown above make it clearer?

(Last edited by tmo26 on 2 Aug 2015, 11:08)

Perhaps the USB is all good
Should we add 1x eSATA to it? Or where do we keep eSATA ( Linksys WRT1900AC and Netgear R7500, probably more devices soon).
Or have we already talked about it and I have forgotten what we decided?

You DID email jow right? You did not tell me to do it?

I changed the access rights of http://wiki.openwrt.org/meta/create_new_dataentry_page
Now only logged in users have access to that page.

I will sync the background page according to todays definitions.

Updated to "lower left".

Indeed, we should be clearer here.

We have that already -> Field "SATA ports"

Ooops, typo on my side: Yes, I did email him!

Ok...

Comparing:
http://wiki.openwrt.org/meta/template_dataentry
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/906 … ium_v1.txt

1) I am not exporting SATA ports
2) template not matching Conventions for Characteristics when it comes to USB and SATA ports (2 fields)
3) I am exporting Comments network ports_: not on template page.
4) I am exporting Comments: not on template page, but under Conventions for Characteristics
5) WLAN Stds: only on template
6) WLAN Hardware(s): I export with s. Template and CfC without s.

I suggest:
1) I add SATA ports to export
2) template is master. CfC needs update
3) Not sure. Perhaps put this info in the general comment field instead?
4) Add Comments to template
5) Remove WLAN Stds from template
6) My version (with s) is correct.

Am I annoying?
Are you ok with those 6 suggestions? Otherwise I accept what you suggest.

1) Yes please
2) CfC updated
3) Is already present: Comments network ports_              :   # Comments on Ethernet, Fibre and Modem
If field is empty, nothing will be shown in normal pageview, but field is visible in the editor and the wikisource.
4) Is already present: Comments_                            :   # Anything that's worth mentioning
(same as 3 above)
5) done
6) WLAN Hardwares: Is already the same in the template and in the datapages. ?-)

Annoying? Not at all! 4 eyes see more than 2.

Ahhh 3,4 and 6 is basically the same mistake: it is not presented the way we design it. I get it now.
I will get back when I fixed 1.

please take a look at http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/tohmk2_stat … mp;dataflt[Model*~]=www

How did the WWW make it into the model name?

Updated again. I think it looks good (with SATA ports).

In case there is no USB whatsoever there is a '-' in the multichoice field... I guess that is good.
We should probably deal with the Linksys WRT1900AC and its "shared" USB3.0/eSATA port. We can do that when we are all migrated though.

Update: Someone did this pretty edit to Trendnet. I fixed it quickly (old rev):
http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/start?rev=1 … 7#trendnet

(Last edited by zo0ok on 2 Aug 2015, 14:40)

Range Extender is probably a Device Type.
Do we know of any supported?

https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=58800

(Last edited by zo0ok on 2 Aug 2015, 15:17)

Hmmm... well, DIR-505 can be
Travel Router
Range Extender / Repeater
AP
Hotspot
USB charger

Now choose... ;-)

(Last edited by tmo26 on 2 Aug 2015, 15:34)

You are just bragging ;-)

I guess "more is more" and it is a WiFi router.

Checked out Range Extenders... they typically DO have one Ethernet connection. So we can not easily/automatically distinguish them from a router. Clearly, such a Range Extender would get much more extra functionality with OpenWrt. But those I found were not particularly cheap.

Please take a look at http://wiki.openwrt.org/meta/template_device?&#info and compare the two tables.

- Upper one (Info): That's how this information was show before (manually entered)
- Lower one (Datatemplatelist): Makes use of our dataentries (currently only DIR-505 example)

How is this done?
- New plugin datatemplate
- New template template_datatemplatelist
(That's where the look of the table and the placeholders are defined)
- New '---- datatemplatelist dttpllist ----' in the template_device
(That's where the template is inserted and the placeholders are filled in)

I like this new plugin, since it offers more flexibility in regards to the way the data is presented.

(Last edited by tmo26 on 3 Aug 2015, 10:56)

@zo0ok: Do you want 'Range extender' to be added to the 'Device type' dropdown?

We can wait... we still have the Other category that is not very heavily used.

Looks good!

When you say "more flexibility", you mean compared to before we used structure data (as it is in the real wiki now). We are not comparing two sets of competing plugins/technologies for our new device management - right? (because then I am quite lost)

The Hardware Highlights... we drop those together with Info, right?

To avoid redundancy and to make things as clear as possible, I suggest that the all data from the Data Entry is shown in the "Datatemplatelist", and only there. The rest of the Device Page (and the template) should only deal with stuff not found in the Data Entry. I do understand this may be a stupid principle to push 100%, but I think it is a good starting point.

But you have thought more about the Device page, and perhaps you have other plans for it

More flexibility: No, we're not comparing two plugins. The datatemplate plugin is an add-on to the data plugin.

- Data plugin allows you to create datatables as you know them from the current tohmkII examples: Fields in one row, values in following row(s). However, fields in one column, values in another column, is not possible with the dataplugin alone.
- Datatemplate plugin allows you to create templates, in which you can place the the values more freely, e.g. in a table created by you (as shown on the template_device page), not a fixed table created by the data plugin, that you can not change. The dataemplate plugin uses the data of the data plugin, i.e. our dataentry pages.

Hardware highlights: I would leave them in, to give a quick overview of what the device has to offer. I shortened the list a bit, taking out serial, JTAG, LEDs + buttons.

Hmmm... OK, now I get your point:
- Yes, we drop the "Info" -> replace by datatemplatelist
- Hardware highlights keep/delete: Undecided. Depending on placement of the datatemplatelist, see below
- datatemplatelist (soon to be "Hardware Info"?): Do we keep it at it's current place, or should we move it upwards, to the beginning of the page?

Before I delete the "Info" from the template_device:

There's a field called "Vendor" (Qualcomm Atheros / Lantiq / MediaTek / Broadcom / Ikanos / Marvell / Ingenic Semiconductor / Freescale Semiconductor / Cavium), which we currently don't have in our dataentry template.
I think it's meant to be the vendor/manufacturer of the SoC, however, the manufacturer is currently in the Platform, as well as the SoC.

- Our current "Platform" information consists of 'Manufacturer Model#', e.g. Atheros AR9331. RangerZ proposed a split of this information, IIRC.
- The "Info" table calls for "Vendor" and "SoC".

Apart from being able to put the vendors shown above in a dropdown, we don't have a benefit from this, since the dynfilters in the datatables already allow for filtering for e.g. Atheros.

How to proceed?

- Keep it like it is today (Platform = Vendor/Manufacturer Model#), adapt datatemplatelist accordingly.
- Split "Platform" into "Vendor/Manufacturer" and "SoC/Model"

Edit: Switch + PSU are not covered in our todays dataentry template. Hmm... add them?

(Last edited by tmo26 on 3 Aug 2015, 16:21)