Integrate PCB ID into device ident system

[JosephHewitt]

Integrate the board identification byte feature from #147 into the device identification feature and standardize the WiGLE CSV header so we don't need a case for each device brand, specifically;

• release is now the same as appRelease (firmware release version)
• device and board is set to wardriver.uk DEVICE_NAME where DEVICE_NAME is the human readable string for the device (eg, rev3 or Mini Wardriver Rev2)
• brand value is unchanged, but populated dynamically from device identity (eg, JHewitt or CoD_Segfault)

@CoD-Segfault, since this changes the header for your device, please could you review these changes and let me know your thoughts? Thanks.

[CoD-Segfault]

Can we parameterize the entire model/device/board strings rather than just appending to wardriver.uk? It will give a little more flexibility while still being able to have a single header definition.

I do want to see stats on WiGLE for how people are using my boards and I'm afraid that they are just looking for "wardriver.uk" anywhere in the header and calling it a day.

All that and also Tim won't have to lose his name. :)

[JosephHewitt]

I do want to see stats on WiGLE for how people are using my boards and I'm afraid that they are just looking for "wardriver.uk" anywhere in the header and calling it a day.

Makes sense. When I spoke to the WiGLE team, it seemed they were looking exclusively at brand=JHewitt to identify my device so I don't think the inclusion of wardriver.uk anywhere in the header will cause issues with this. I would like it to be included somewhere so that it is obvious to the WiGLE team what is generating the CSV files for if there is ever a technical issue. It makes more sense for them to reach out to me or open an issue in this repo than to contact whoever made a new hardware variant.

I will change it so the only forced wardriver.uk reference is in release and/or appRelease which the WiGLE stats system almost certainly won't be looking at to decide if the device is mine or not. I will also parameterize the remaining values.

Does this seem like a reasonable implementation to you? Thanks!

[CoD-Segfault]

That sounds great to me. Thanks for the compromise.