meshtastic
Gps research
Begin researching M9 integration re: #3811.
A couple of things:
- Please provide feedback on if this overall structure looks alright. I don't think I'm breaking anything, but without any unit testing it is kind of a free for all
- @GPSFan it would be helpful if you could give some feedback on what the critical configs are to make the M9 functional... We'll translate them into
32.01
Feel free to write them as comments in the code here or in #3811.
cc @lolsborn
I have an M9 receiver and will be able to test it on my ESP32 based system, but until I get my I/O breakout for my RAK system (on order, shipped) I won't be able to do any testing on an NRF52. I will review the attached code.
The hwVersion for the M9 is 90000 not 190000.
That would be logical, wouldn't it. But its not, lol.
I have an M9 receiver and will be able to test it on my ESP32 based system, but until I get my I/O breakout for my RAK system (on order, shipped) I won't be able to do any testing on an NRF52. I will review the attached code.
Totally. Just feeding ideas would be helpful. Have not dug into if they are defaults yet, but seems like setting RMC and GCA and then turning off all of the other chatty stuff might be the key thing to fix.
Ken, we can mail you a Canary radio if it would be helpful.
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 7:07 PM Ken McGuire @.***> wrote:
I have an M9 receiver and will be able to test it on my ESP32 based system, but until I get my I/O breakout for my RAK system (on order, shipped) I won't be able to do any testing on an NRF52. I will review the attached code.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/meshtastic/firmware/pull/3816#issuecomment-2097264680, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAOZBFGW53ZTZDCECIJKF3ZBAZPJAVCNFSM6AAAAABHKB2YWOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOJXGI3DINRYGA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Well, I'll be... shows you what a few years of not using the old M9 does.. That just reinforces the fact that the M9 is an odd duck. And the rest of the example of the output of the MON-VER command (page 15 of UBX-21022436 - R02 shows an F9P, Protocol 34 and FWVER=HPG 1.12 as the firmware. u-blox documentation isn't always the best. My M9N is now at 4.04 protocol 32.01 and indeed does report the hwVersion as 190000. Another corner case.....
Hi @hdngr @lolsborn , are you still interested in M9 support? I've just merged some changes to the gps code which will make it easier to add M9 specific things. Though, the new code conflicts pretty badly with this pull request, so let's move back to the issue #3811 for discussion?
