Skip to content

Add [E³] SB6432 LCD key driver#1180

Open
sephalon wants to merge 2 commits into
olikraus:masterfrom
sephalon:e3keys
Open

Add [E³] SB6432 LCD key driver#1180
sephalon wants to merge 2 commits into
olikraus:masterfrom
sephalon:e3keys

Conversation

@sephalon

@sephalon sephalon commented May 3, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Add support for the [E³] SB6432 LCD key.

These switches feature a programmable RGB LED backlight, for which there is no API function available yet; therefore I added one. What do you think about that? Alternatively, we could "abuse" the set contrast function for this purpose if we widen the value parameter to 32 bit.

Documentation is yet to be written.

Comment thread csrc/u8x8.h Outdated
@olikraus

olikraus commented May 4, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

wow, you did a deep look into u8g2

@olikraus

olikraus commented May 4, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Another questions: Are these switches related to #889 ?
I mean, is this the same product: http://www.lcd-solution.com/fiches_techniques/DataSheet-Q5-V0-9%20RdR01.pdf ?

@sephalon

sephalon commented May 5, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

wow, you did a deep look into u8g2

Thanks! So you think that adding a set backlight color API function makes sense? Then I will write up some documentation for that.

@sephalon

sephalon commented May 5, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Another questions: Are these switches related to #889 ?
I mean, is this the same product: http://www.lcd-solution.com/fiches_techniques/DataSheet-Q5-V0-9%20RdR01.pdf ?

Interesting, at least the interface seems to be compatible. However, the Q5-Dot32-S claims to support alternative addressing modes [1] which the SB6432 documentation does not mention. I tried these addressing modes on the SB6432 and they do not work. Since there's also subtle differences (e.g. measures) in the datasheets, I would assume for now that they are different, but mostly compatible products. I will try to confirm this with the manufacturer though.

[1] These would actually fit better to the u8g2 addressing model.

@olikraus

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thanks a lot so far. Plan is to test my device with your code. Unfortunately I do not have much time at the moment. Let's see...

@olikraus olikraus added this to the 2.28 milestone May 10, 2020
@sephalon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

You'll find my attempts to implement the alternative addressing mode of the Q5-Dot32-S at sephalon/u8g2@b806a14.

@olikraus

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

still no progress on my end...

@olikraus olikraus modified the milestones: 2.28, On Hold Dec 25, 2020
@metizn

metizn commented Jul 19, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

+1 to include E3 LCD switches!

@olikraus

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

I somehow stopped working on this. Is this required for someone?

@sephalon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I am still using these LCD keys in my project and would be interested in getting support for them merged upstream.

@metizn

metizn commented Jul 20, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Would be much appreciated if those LCD keys could be included in U8g2

@olikraus

olikraus commented Jul 24, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

I own only the switches mentioned here: #889
So support could be done for those switches from #889 however, my time is very limited...

@sephalon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

As I mentioned before, my implementation for the [E³] SB6432 should be fully compatible to the Q5-Dot32-S. I would also be happy to help out with testing the [E³] SB6432. If time permits you can try my implementation of the alternative addressing mode of the Q5-Dot32-S at sephalon@b806a14; this is untested however since I have only the [E³] SB6432, but not the Q5-Dot32-S.

@sephalon

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Pinging this, still interested to get this upstream at some point. Maybe there is some time during christmas break ;-)

@olikraus

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thanks for your hard work, but I probably can't merge this. Some of your modifications are part of generated code. They would be overwritten. Other ports need more review and impact analysis from my end, which would require some time (which I do not have at the moment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants