3 replies to this topic

[Stan]

More and more forum discussions end up in arguments about enigma.info.

Is it really that hard to accomplish the implementation? What are the obstacles?

[WanWizard]

I don't see any.

 

There are two issues:

• the current implementation isn't 100% complete (as you've noticed with the ET4000), mainly due to lack of time and my ongoing illness, and nobody else finishing it for me .
• the MACHINE_FEATURES definition in the BSP's aren't 100% correct, mainly due to errors when syncing them with OE-A (either due to mistakes on our side, or OE-A being wrong).

Not that complex to fix, given someone with time to do it and understanding of what enigma.info is supposed to do.

[Stan]

@WanWizard, you don't have to do all by yourself. 

 

Unfortunately, there is no source that describes what enigma.info is supposed to do. All that's available is a list of parameters. 

[WanWizard]

I can live with a list of parameters.

 

The problem is the list is extremely vague. It mainly only says it is a "string" value, which could be anything, without any details or specification about content and intendent use.

 

So a lot is reverse engineering work. When I feel better I think I'll ask Captain again for a zip of all their enigma.info files, so I can do a line-per-line comparison.

 

Once that is done, we need to go through the old systeminfo and OWIF branding code, to implement the runtime logic that was there (for boxes where we have one image covering multiple models).