For Developers: Please enable displaying the Lantiq DSL firmware version

In 18.04, the older openwrt versions and the latest openwrt git i dont see the DSL firmware version in luci.
Please enable this. This is a relevant information and helps a lot for example when people have no DSL connection because of missing vectoring functionality. Then when they ask here why its like that, the developers can ask them more easy about the used firmware version on their devices.

Recently you have to run /etc/init.d/dsl_control status to get the relevant line "Firmware Version:" .
Please enable showing the version inside of the openwrt overview like already many other values are already shown.

fwiw, JSamuel created a custom Chaos Calmer build for the BT Openreach VG3503J modem in 2015 that also provided extra DSL line parameters and version info.


Above image retrieved from:,15918.0.html

The thread links to:

Would be nice if these extra DSL parameters could be added to a future OpenWRT too as they are useful for diagnosing line faults.

What is this modification? I cant find the code of that modification.

EDIT: Thanks for the link to the DSL patch.

Link added to earlier post.

Here's an idea: LuCI could use a dedicated page for "detailed DSL status", akin to "Wireguard status" if luci-app-wireguard is installed. Not just to display more details on a separate page, but also to remove all those usually unnecessary details from the front page status.

As it is now, pulling all the dsl status information takes about 1.5 seconds of sys time with every 5 second refresh, causing a load of 0.5 to 0.8(!) just for the idle LuCI front page. I actually (manually) removed DSL info from the LuCI page template for that reason.

A reduced status consisting of line status, up and downstream rate and SNR -- which is certainly good enough for a quick status display on the front page -- would take less than 0.3 seconds to pull, an 80% reduction in CPU load.

I have asked jow (the developer of luci) to add this patch to OpenWr here: xDSL (VDSL2) F/OSS implementation

But that's not how it works. You don't submit an untested patch that "might work", and you don't submit someone else's patch against another codebase.

Any news on this?