Added ST7796S Support #169
Conversation
|
Please link this with issue #160 |
|
As per my latest comment on the issue, this should be ready to merge now. |
|
Thanks! Looks great! Had a couple of notes above. |
| @@ -96,10 +99,15 @@ void InitST7735R() | |||
| #endif | |||
|
|
|||
| // TODO: The 0xB1 command is not Frame Rate Control for ST7789VW, 0xB3 is (add support to it) | |||
| #ifndef ST7789VW | |||
| #if !defined(ST7789VW) || !defined(ST7796S) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be #if !defined(ST7789VW) && !defined(ST7796S) (in the current form, it will always resolve as true)
| // Frame rate = 850000 / [ (2*RTNA+40) * (162 + FPA+BPA)] | ||
| SPI_TRANSFER(0xB1/*FRMCTR1:Frame Rate Control*/, /*RTNA=*/6, /*FPA=*/1, /*BPA=*/1); // This should set frame rate = 99.67 Hz | ||
| #endif | ||
| // The frame rate control on the ST7796S needs different values in order to work correctly. Borrowing these values | ||
| // from the device tree files of the MHS-4.0 inch hat device tree files. They fix all the problems I was having. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Perhaps change this comment to
// The ST7796S does not work with the frame rate control from above for other ST77* displays. This value taken from MHS-4.0" device tree files, meaning unknown.
since a comment They fix all the problems I was having. is useful for a PR comment, but it has no value after having landed in the tree.
| @@ -62,6 +61,10 @@ void InitST7735R() | |||
| madctl ^= MADCTL_ROTATE_180_DEGREES; | |||
| #endif | |||
|
|
|||
| #if defined(ST7796S) | |||
| madctl ^= MADCTL_COLUMN_ADDRESS_ORDER_SWAP; | |||
| #endif | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Needing to have this in here seems odd. Is this making the display landscape by default? Or portrait? The panel is a portrait scaning panel, according to the DISPLAY_NATIVE_WIDTH/HEIGHT fields from below?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's been a few weeks, but I believe that I added this because without it the display was mirrored.
|
Ops, very sorry, I had reviewed this code, but it looks like the comments had got stuck behind GitHub's "pending comments" feature. Published them now. |
No description provided.