Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd. - Support Forums and Community
Z-Wave Device Support - Printable Version

+- Charmed Quark Systems, Ltd. - Support Forums and Community (https://www.charmedquark.com/vb_forums)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.charmedquark.com/vb_forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: CQC Support (https://www.charmedquark.com/vb_forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Z-Wave Device Support (/showthread.php?tid=10984)



Z-Wave Device Support - simplextech - 01-05-2020

Reading through the documentation and information about Z-Wave device support.  It sounds as though if you know how then it's fairly trivial to add support for a device if you know the structure of the configuration and doesn't require a binary update.

If no binary update is required and it "is possible" for end users to add device support if they know how this is extremely powerful.  Is there further documentation on structure and adding to the z-wave device DB?  A possible "community" device list could be assembled for use also.  Of course "use at your own risk".


RE: Z-Wave Device Support - Dean Roddey - 01-05-2020

I wouldn't even remotely want to try to document that. It's so complicated and requires a lot of knowledge of Z-Wave and the underlying driver code to do it right.


RE: Z-Wave Device Support - simplextech - 01-05-2020

(01-05-2020, 11:09 AM)Dean Roddey Wrote: I wouldn't even remotely want to try to document that. It's so complicated and requires a lot of knowledge of Z-Wave and the underlying driver code to do it right.

But it's possible?


RE: Z-Wave Device Support - Dean Roddey - 01-05-2020

Sometimes, sometimes not. Because Z-Wave is so only semi-standard, I often have to tweak the code to support a new device in practice. If it's a manufacturer we've not seen yet I have to add support for that. And it has to be compiled into the correct form as well, it's not just the files themselves.


RE: Z-Wave Device Support - simplextech - 01-05-2020

(01-05-2020, 01:50 PM)Dean Roddey Wrote: Sometimes, sometimes not. Because Z-Wave is so only semi-standard, I often have to tweak the code to support a new device in practice. If it's a manufacturer we've not seen yet I have to add support for that. And it has to be compiled into the correct form as well, it's not just the files themselves.

Gotcha.  New vendors I fully get needing to incorporate.  Would be nice though to abstract to a degree to allow new devices being added via XML or some other definition of the command class mappings to CQC.  Granted this is not something most would do but there are some that have access to scanning their devices and getting the raw data from them understanding it and adding it. 

Also what could be done if this abstraction was defined then existing definitions could be taken from the online z-wave device DB or from existing openZwave definitions and converted..... Z-Way does this so does OpenHAB and the abstraction layer is done for platforms like SmartThings and Hubitat where devices can be added from user space driver definitions although it's in Groovy... ugh.


RE: Z-Wave Device Support - Dean Roddey - 01-06-2020

It would still require a huge amount of documentation, and I'd no longer be able to make changes to the driver without breaking things. As it is now, I'm free to do anything necessary to move the driver forward without dragging along lots of evolutionary baggage. So I'd rather just reserve that for myself.


RE: Z-Wave Device Support - simplextech - 01-06-2020

(01-06-2020, 02:01 PM)Dean Roddey Wrote: It would still require a huge amount of documentation, and I'd no longer be able to make changes to the driver without breaking things. As it is now, I'm free to do anything necessary to move the driver forward without dragging along lots of evolutionary baggage. So I'd rather just reserve that for myself.
Now that's the best answer I've heard for something all day.  Sensible and to the point.  I like it.