Include additional information in EEP

[kipe]

If applicable, we should include information about the teach-in variant, support for ADT etc in the EEP.xml also. At least some profiles do include this information in the documentation, and thus it should be set in our version. At least multiple VLD profiles include this information. Not sure if any of our current profiles define these, but the structure of EEP.xml should be revised to include these. Also, majority of this information could be done

The revised structure should include information about

• data exchange
  • directions of communication, whether or not the device also listens to us...
  • addressing (mainly support for ADT?)
• teach-in
  • method
  • variant

Maybe something like the following example, with support for multiple teach-ins, where the first one is preferred. The point of using a list would be to include the variations we have seen with real hardware, to make an educated guess for the correct variant.

<data>
  ...
</data>
<teachin>
  <!--
  number of devices is just a tally of devices we have actually
  observed to use the variation -> thus making it more likely canditate.
  -->
  <variant type="2" number_of_devices="4" />
  <variant type="1" number_of_devices="1" />
  <!--
  As for devices using UTE, the learn -message differs from the normal message,
  so teach-in could and should be left out?
  -->
</teachin>
<dataexchange>
  <direction> <!-- only one should be applicable? -->
    <unidirectional />
    <bidirectional />
  </direction>
  <supports_adt /> <!-- included only, if ADT is supported, otherwise left out -->
</dataexchange>

[stv0g]

I contacted the EnOcean Alliance and asked for some up-to-date EEPs. On their website, they state the the XMLs are member only. But maybe they are open source friendly.. Lets see :)

Anyway, I would propose that we keep close to the official EEP XMLs and find another place for the additional fields.

[kipe]

I had quite a long discussion about the availability of XMLs when starting this project, at least then the response was a clear "no".

[stv0g]

at least then the response was a clear "no".

They simply ignored my mail :(