[Ovmsdev] Ioniq 5 - Pushing up some prerequisite changes to components/vehicles
Michael Balzer
dexter at expeedo.de
Thu Nov 3 00:32:48 HKT 2022
Michael,
very nice initial release.
Some of your custom metrics are clearly standard candidates, I'll have a
closer look.
Some of your metrics namings are a bit off the standard scheme, for
example "xiq.version" would better be "xiq.m.version". Reason for this
is users can use the same metrics query pattern to get all standard and
custom metrics of that segment, e.g. to get all software versions:
OVMS# me li m.ver
m.version 3.3.003-63-g942d04f7/ota_0/edge (build idf
v3.3.4-849-g6e214dc335 Nov 2 2022 08:00:16)
xvu.m.version 0.22.5 Nov 2 2022 08:00:41
Likewise "v.d." should list all door related metrics, and so on. But
you're free to go against that scheme where appropriate.
Before reworking these, let me check for standard model candidates. Your
door and seat belt ones clearly are some.
Build is already on my server, I'll also post a note on the german
Goingelectric forum.
Regards,
Michael
Am 02.11.22 um 10:04 schrieb Michael Geddes:
> Excellent,
>
> Pull request has gone up for Ioniq 5
> https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pull/762
>
> I hope I haven't pre-empted some of the config things/defaults.
>
> There is still a bunch of work I'd like to do in discovering more
> addresses... and I'm kinda hoping that somebody with better resources
> can fill in some controls (I got as far as confirming that none of the
> ones from the Kia/Kona work).
> For eg I found accelerator pedal percent, but not the brake, and I've
> confirmed all the door and lids.. except the charge port one!
>
> Unfortunately I also don't have a second driver in the household (who
> can physically drive my car without extra controls) so I can't drive
> around and query stuff.. but I have a friend who might be up for it.
>
> The VIN I get is a weird partial thing with the letters (in a weird
> order) and no number. NFI if it's encoded weirdly or what.
>
> I have an OBD splitter on the way that might help me work out why the
> HUD I bought doesn't work (at the least I can test the voltage drop).
>
> //.ichael
>
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 14:57, Michael Balzer <dexter at expeedo.de> wrote:
>
> If you only add the #defines, that's ok included in your PR. If
> you also change usages of 0x7df etc. in the vehicle framework,
> that would be a separate PR.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
> Am 02.11.22 um 00:54 schrieb Michael Geddes:
>> I'm close to the ioniq5 release now. (Read-only for the
>> moment). Thanks for your support and patience!
>>
>> One of the things I included were the following defines in
>> vehicle.h which I think should go here, but I'm really not fussed.
>>
>> #define VEHICLE_OBD_BROADCAST_MODULE_TX 0x7df
>> #define VEHICLE_OBD_BROADCAST_MODULE_RX 0x0
>>
>> These are used in the following call to get at the VIN.
>>
>> std::string response;
>> int res = PollSingleRequest( m_can1,
>> VEHICLE_OBD_BROADCAST_MODULE_TX,
>> VEHICLE_OBD_BROADCAST_MODULE_RX,
>> VEHICLE_POLL_TYPE_OBDIIVEHICLE, 2, response, 1000);
>>
>> questions:
>>
>> * Do you want one/both these in vehicle.h (I can always just
>> have 0 in place of *_RX in the call)?
>> * If so, should I:
>> o make a separate P/R or
>> o just include it as a commit in the Ioniq-5 P/R ?
>>
>> //.ichael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 22:48, Michael Balzer <dexter at expeedo.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I've already merged PR #754 and commented on #753.
>>
>> Other opinions on #753 are of course welcome.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> Am 29.10.22 um 16:25 schrieb Michael Geddes:
>>> No problems at all, these were just thoughts.
>>>
>>> So are those 2 PRs ok as they stand?
>>>
>>> I have a couple more in the pipeline(as I previously
>>> described) before the main I5 one.
>>>
>>> Mihael
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022, 8:16 pm Michael Balzer,
>>> <dexter at expeedo.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> please don't change existing vehicle code for personal
>>> code style reasons. The existing data extraction methods
>>> have been working and will continue to work. By adding
>>> your utilities to the framework, we're giving everyone
>>> interested the opportunity to consider using these, we
>>> don't force them to do.
>>>
>>> Regarding your combined data extraction & metric setting
>>> utility, from my experience this won't be applicable in
>>> many (most) cases, or would need quite a lot of extra
>>> features exceeding a simple scaling. Applications often
>>> need or want to change metrics only indirectly after
>>> processing the raw data read from the bus, often in
>>> combination with other readings and/or delayed. Validity
>>> checks also need to be done in a broad variety, often
>>> with side conditions.
>>>
>>> A good approach is to first define & refine your
>>> generalized methods locally in your component. Keep an
>>> eye on the existing method signatures, so once you're
>>> happy with them it's easy to move them into the
>>> framework. That way you'll avoid having to break
>>> compatibility for other developers possibly already
>>> using an early release of your method.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 27.10.22 um 09:36 schrieb Michael Geddes:
>>>> While I'm still happy with the base data extraction
>>>> tools, I'm wondering if some more direct tools would be
>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> For example some methods on the Base vehicle that takes
>>>> a buffer, a byte index and template byte count a Metric
>>>> object and a multiplier.. That will conditionally set
>>>> the metric if the data is within bounds.
>>>>
>>>> Or methods on the metrics themselves that has similar
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> I notice that index by 4 bit 'nibbles' is also a Thing
>>>> That Is Done.
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to implement that if there's appetite for
>>>> it... And possibly look at a few Vehicles to switch to that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, 1:26 pm Michael Geddes,
>>>> <frog at bunyip.wheelycreek.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok - so I've pared down my requirements on the BMS
>>>> module to the ability to be able to cap the # of
>>>> Voltages/Temperatures at a lower (only) value than
>>>> initialised at.
>>>> This means that the code to create the averages etc
>>>> is just pulled out to a private function here:
>>>> https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pull/753
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This P/R request adds the buffer extraction tools
>>>> (with 32bit length) to ovms utils.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pull/754
>>>>
>>>> //.ichael
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 at 17:38, Michael Geddes
>>>> <frog at bunyip.wheelycreek.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Michael,
>>>>
>>>> I have taken it in, and I'll use std::string in
>>>> poll once code. I guess it might make sense to
>>>> convert everything else to std::string. It
>>>> wouldn't be a big task.
>>>>
>>>> I had just taken out that commit and reworked
>>>> anyway, and now that you say it's not the best
>>>> way of doing things, I'm even happier I made
>>>> that choice, as I had intended to possibly make
>>>> more use of it and won't now. At the moment
>>>> I'm using it to get the VIN (snipped) where
>>>> I'll try a couple of times only, rather than
>>>> continually poll for it.
>>>> Hmm... yea - I guess I could do some
>>>> dynamically created poll table. Will definitely
>>>> consider that.
>>>>
>>>> Further comments inline below:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 at 16:15, Michael Balzer
>>>> <dexter at expeedo.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Michael,
>>>>
>>>> what I really dislike about your change is
>>>> that it adds complexity to the underlying
>>>> function just to fulfill an -- in my eyes
>>>> more academic -- type style choice: having
>>>> to handle multiple buffer pointers just to
>>>> provide different typing approaches is bad.
>>>> You could introduce a new construct to
>>>> provide a single polymorphic pointer, but
>>>> that again adds complexity.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, std::string is a bit type-sloppy in
>>>> depending on char being unsigned 8 bit, but
>>>> that's all to consider, and can easily be
>>>> enforced if ever necessary.
>>>>
>>>> On the plus side, std::string has far
>>>> better library support, better
>>>> interoperability (see our use cases), and
>>>> small string optimization, which is
>>>> especially useful for our platform, as most
>>>> poll requests and responses easily fit into
>>>> the initial capacity, normally eliminating
>>>> the need for heap allocations.
>>>>
>>>> So, besides the type independency, I think
>>>> std::vector has no advantage here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's another thing I'd like to address:
>>>> it seems you're planning to use single
>>>> polls extensively?
>>>>
>>>> If so, please don't, unless you're also
>>>> going to do a full rewrite of the poller
>>>> towards a job/worker service task
>>>> architecture (that's a very old todo).
>>>>
>>>> The single poll utility is really meant for
>>>> sparse/manual polls outside the normal
>>>> polling scheme. See my comment on the method:
>>>>
>>>> * PollSingleRequest: perform *prioritized
>>>> synchronous* single OBD2/UDS request
>>>> * Pass a full OBD2/UDS request
>>>> (mode/type, PID, additional payload).
>>>> * The request is sent immediately,
>>>> *aborting a running poll list request*. The
>>>> previous
>>>> * poller state is automatically restored
>>>> after the request has been performed, but
>>>> * *without any guarantee for repetition or
>>>> omission of an aborted poll*.
>>>>
>>>> This was really meant more for user/script
>>>> use than for standard vehicle polls, though
>>>> it's OK to use it, where applicable, with
>>>> caution.
>>>>
>>>> For all standard polling, install a PID
>>>> list. You can vary a list by the poll
>>>> state, and you can switch lists if
>>>> necessary. PID lists can easily be
>>>> generated dynamically, see the VWUP code
>>>> for an example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The place for general CAN utility methods
>>>> is the components/can/src/canutils module,
>>>> general utility methods go into the
>>>> main/ovms_utils module.
>>>>
>>>> Ahh.. cool.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regarding CAN buffer data extraction, there
>>>> are currently probably as many approaches
>>>> as there are vehicle modules. Certainly
>>>> would be nice to have some standard way
>>>> here, but won't be simple to rework the
>>>> existing vehicle adaptors.
>>>>
>>>> The template approach is a nice one for a
>>>> general solution, but keep in mind not
>>>> every vehicle will use big endian encoding,
>>>> in some cases not even consistently
>>>> throughout the installed devices.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had already implemented little-endian and
>>>> big-endian versions of the data extract. I will
>>>> now explicitly mark all of them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be really general, your byte addressing
>>>> needs to support more than 256 bytes in the
>>>> buffer.
>>>>
>>>> Consider that fixed.
>>>>
>>>> Your templates also lack bit masking and
>>>> shifting. Some devices use packed structs
>>>> with odd sized bit fields. The DBC engine
>>>> has support for all this, but not
>>>> generalized. I remember Mark getting a
>>>> headache from this…
>>>>
>>>> I have a get_bit<>() function and so I would
>>>> propose it be implemented in a similar way...
>>>> ie exract the byte first, then get the bits.
>>>> Something like: extract_int<1,2>(byte) -->
>>>> Extract bits len 2 starting from bit 1. We can
>>>> easily sign-extend that too.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 23.10.22 um 02:23 schrieb Michael Geddes:
>>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> Just wanted to say that if you override my
>>>>> objections on the std::vector<unit8_t> in
>>>>> the single poll code then I'm fine with
>>>>> that, I recognised that it's absolutely
>>>>> your call and that bit has a small impact
>>>>> on my code so far. I can even add
>>>>> versions of the extraction functions that
>>>>> use std::string if you want (they would
>>>>> just be inline template wrappers around
>>>>> common code anyway so zero compiled cost).
>>>>>
>>>>> Also: Is there a better place to put those
>>>>> templated functions? A version of my
>>>>> sign_extend function is already being
>>>>> proposed being used here:
>>>>> https://github.com/openvehicles/Open-Vehicle-Monitoring-System-3/pull/736
>>>>> - it would be good if both versions of
>>>>> this function were available in a single
>>>>> place. (There's sign_extend<UINT,
>>>>> INT>(int_value, sign_bit) and
>>>>> sign_extend<UINT, INT, SIGNBIT>(int_value)
>>>>> - so they should work fine as overloaded
>>>>> template functions).
>>>>>
>>>>> I would consider also whether I use
>>>>> std::string in my own code where I'm
>>>>> extracting my data out of complete ISOTP
>>>>> poll results. Up to you. That has slightly
>>>>> more impact, but the code change is pretty
>>>>> easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> //.ichael
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 at 07:56, Michael
>>>>> Geddes <frog at bunyip.wheelycreek.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> I had already created my commits under
>>>>> the assumption that you would prefer
>>>>> the general changes separate from the
>>>>> vehicle-specific commits.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have created 3 pull requests so far.
>>>>> 1) the bug - that's a no-brainer.
>>>>> 2) 'finalisation' of temperatures
>>>>> and voltages. (Draft, see below)
>>>>> 3) vector poll. This is more a point
>>>>> of discussion (see below)
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of the next bugs are kind of
>>>>> dependent on the second, so I'll wait
>>>>> until I get that sorted out.
>>>>>
>>>>> More comments below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 23:31, Michael
>>>>> Balzer <dexter at expeedo.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 19.10.22 um 07:26 schrieb
>>>>> Michael Geddes:
>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I have 6 commits that I would
>>>>> _like_ to get pushed up that are
>>>>> changes
>>>>> > to components/vehicles required
>>>>> for my Ioniq 5 changes to work.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I can push them all up in a
>>>>> single merge request for review, or
>>>>> > separate them out into bits.
>>>>> Some of them I am expecting there
>>>>> to be
>>>>> > opinions on. I'm prepared to
>>>>> simplify some, and one in
>>>>> particular has
>>>>> > grounds for nixing. I think it's
>>>>> a good change, but I could manage
>>>>> > without it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please keep PRs as small as
>>>>> possible, focusing on one specific
>>>>> modification / addition at a time.
>>>>> That way, every merge commit can
>>>>> easily be reverted if necessary,
>>>>> and changes can be followed and
>>>>> referred to easily. Especially
>>>>> keep framework changes separate from
>>>>> vehicle specific ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's also OK to open the PRs
>>>>> tagged as drafts / work in
>>>>> progress, that
>>>>> helps in commenting on certain
>>>>> parts and tracing refinements.
>>>>> Create one
>>>>> branch for each PR, pushing new
>>>>> commits into the branch will
>>>>> automatically update any open PR
>>>>> created from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ooh. That's useful. It's been a while
>>>>> since I've used github for collab.
>>>>> Switched the battery sensor P/R over
>>>>> to a draft.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > One is a simple bugfix - a
>>>>> literal one-character change:
>>>>> > void
>>>>> OvmsVehicle::BmsRestartCellTemperatures()
>>>>> > {
>>>>> > m_bms_bitset_t.clear();
>>>>> > -
>>>>> m_bms_bitset_v.resize(m_bms_readings_t);
>>>>> > +
>>>>> m_bms_bitset_t.resize(m_bms_readings_t);
>>>>> > m_bms_bitset_ct = 0;
>>>>> > }
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously a copy & paste bug, nice
>>>>> find. I wonder how that could slip
>>>>> through without causing crashes,
>>>>> as there are more voltages than
>>>>> temperatures in most packs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't hesitate with opening
>>>>> PRs even for single fixes like this,
>>>>> the sooner we include them, the
>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. Done and understood.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On is a simple code readability
>>>>> change. Using an enum instead of
>>>>> magic
>>>>> > status values for m_bms_talerts.
>>>>> Simple enough, but I'm prepared to
>>>>> > simplify that to a standard enum
>>>>> or get rid of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The magic values are simply alert
>>>>> levels, but go ahead, readability
>>>>> is a
>>>>> good goal.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll include it once the Battery Cell
>>>>> code is finalised.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There's some battery related
>>>>> ones where I want to be able to
>>>>> not quite
>>>>> > know the number of cells from
>>>>> the start and let the OBD
>>>>> responses specify.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dynamic pack layout
>>>>> reconfiguration is no issue, I've
>>>>> done that on the
>>>>> Twizy (look for comments "update
>>>>> pack layout" or calls to
>>>>> BmsSetCellArrangement*).
>>>>>
>>>>> BmsSetCellArrangement does clear all
>>>>> the values... which is probably the
>>>>> main thing I was trying to avoid. Ie-
>>>>> I get to the end and go 'ooh.. only
>>>>> this number of cells were filled in'.
>>>>> More comments in the P/R about what I
>>>>> want to achieve and fall-back positions.
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > There's also a battery one where
>>>>> the info for the cells have different
>>>>> > timings (because one has other
>>>>> info), so I want to be able to
>>>>> clear a
>>>>> > range of cells rather than just
>>>>> reset and start filling the info
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> That may be a bad idea, maybe
>>>>> better to implement some
>>>>> synchronization /
>>>>> drop readings out of sync.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reaching a consistent state, the
>>>>> BMS will calculate deviations etc..
>>>>> Crucial on that part is an
>>>>> analysis of the consistency of the
>>>>> cell
>>>>> readings to determine the
>>>>> reliability of deviations
>>>>> exceeding thresholds.
>>>>>
>>>>> See my comments in
>>>>> BmsSetCellVoltage() and list thread:
>>>>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/2021-February/015079.html
>>>>>
>>>>> I've skimmed the comments but will
>>>>> read properly and digest. Yeah it
>>>>> might be best if I just clear the
>>>>> values at the start of the more often
>>>>> running one and then once the other
>>>>> ones come in it will finalise once it
>>>>> gets to the end of those.. so they
>>>>> aren't too far apart.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I've modified slightly the dump
>>>>> for the battery cell
>>>>> > voltage/temperature, allowing
>>>>> for either or both columns to be
>>>>> visible
>>>>> > if available. It also copes with
>>>>> the above 'not set' scenario.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll push this once the
>>>>> FinaliseCellVoltage pull-request is
>>>>> finalised and accepted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Finally, the controversial one:
>>>>> I am using std::vector<uint8_t> as a
>>>>> > buffer in my ioniq5 code.. and I
>>>>> wanted to be able to use it for the
>>>>> > polling instead of std::string.
>>>>> I've not replaced the std::string but
>>>>> > added the ability to have either.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If my aversion to using
>>>>> std::string for binary data is
>>>>> misplaced, then
>>>>> > I'm ok with the currently small
>>>>> modification to my code that would
>>>>> use
>>>>> > the std::string version.
>>>>>
>>>>> The general use case of ISO-TP
>>>>> data is actually dynamic binary
>>>>> strings.
>>>>> They are meant to and need to be
>>>>> easily aggregated, cut, merged,
>>>>> partially extracted etc., so they
>>>>> really are strings, not vectors (type
>>>>> wise).
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm.. I'm not sure I entirely agree
>>>>> about needing to aggregate/cut/merge;
>>>>> we know the size of the buffer after
>>>>> the first packet comes in so we can
>>>>> pre-set the buffer internal size and
>>>>> append data as it comes in without
>>>>> casting from uint8_t* to char *. Even
>>>>> if the size is wrong, we can still
>>>>> very easily append to a vector.
>>>>>
>>>>> ON the extraction, I have efficient
>>>>> templated functions that extract the
>>>>> data from the std::vector<uint8_t>
>>>>> buffer.. including to a std::string if
>>>>> required, or to
>>>>> big-endian/little-endian
>>>>> signed/unsigned integers of 1..4 bytes
>>>>> with sign-extension now. These also
>>>>> check bounds so are quite safe -
>>>>> possibly safer than the macros. The
>>>>> bounds check has already proved itself
>>>>> useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have pushed up a draft request
>>>>> 'single poll to buffer' as it is the
>>>>> easiest way to describe what I want to
>>>>> do. The first commit is the meat of
>>>>> the change ... but the second is
>>>>> adding all the utility functions. They
>>>>> probably don't belong in
>>>>> vehicle.h/cpp, but that's easy enough
>>>>> to change. I had them in my ioniq 5
>>>>> specific code - but have shoved them
>>>>> in there just for a point of discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The great thing about the template
>>>>> functions here is that they should
>>>>> expand inline at compile time to quite
>>>>> efficient code.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> //.ichael
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>>>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>>>>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
>>>> Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>>>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>>>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
>>> Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OvmsDev mailing list
>>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>>
>> --
>> Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
>> Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OvmsDev mailing list
>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OvmsDev mailing list
>> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
>> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>
> --
> Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
> Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
>
> _______________________________________________
> OvmsDev mailing list
> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OvmsDev mailing list
> OvmsDev at lists.openvehicles.com
> http://lists.openvehicles.com/mailman/listinfo/ovmsdev
--
Michael Balzer * Helkenberger Weg 9 * D-58256 Ennepetal
Fon 02333 / 833 5735 * Handy 0176 / 206 989 26
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20221102/fc86ae0f/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openvehicles.com/pipermail/ovmsdev/attachments/20221102/fc86ae0f/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the OvmsDev
mailing list