drivers
drivers copied to clipboard
tinygo-org
epd2in66b: Waveshare 2.66inch E-Paper Display Module (B) for Raspberry Pi Pico
A simple driver for the Waveshare 2.66in EPD for the Pico. Heavily inspired by the official python implementation and its magic timing.
See also: https://www.waveshare.com/Pico-ePaper-2.66-B.htm
Using machine package currently breaks the build.
How should I go about removing the machine package from the unit tests?
Example looks like this:
In an optimal scenario, we would add an spi test capabilty similar to https://github.com/tinygo-org/drivers/blob/release/tester/i2c.go
In the meantime, using the drivers.SPI interface instead of machine.SPI can also help.
Looks like it is missing the example? https://github.com/tinygo-org/drivers/actions/runs/8860923503/job/24332227160?pr=673#step:8:308
Looks like it is missing the example? https://github.com/tinygo-org/drivers/actions/runs/8860923503/job/24332227160?pr=673#step:8:308
Too much copy paste, should be fixed. Sorry about that.
Why is this driver specific to the pico? It looks like a regular driver to me that should work on any chip?
Why is this driver specific to the pico? It looks like a regular driver to me that should work on any chip?
The driver 'should' already work with any other chip. The pins & SPI is all configurable. I only have the pico HAT to test currently though: https://www.waveshare.com/pico-epaper-2.66.htm
If this looks too specific, I can also remove the pico HAT specific defaults.
What would you prefer? Either works for me.
On a side note: I did not manage to figure out whether this is a specific waveshare driver chip or something more generic.
If this looks too specific, I can also remove the pico HAT specific defaults.
It would be better to make them more generic.
To make life easier for devs, you could also add a file protected by build tag, with the specific values for the board you are using. That way the "default" case for your board "just works".
@trichner what do you think?
If this looks too specific, I can also remove the pico HAT specific defaults.
It would be better to make them more generic.
To make life easier for devs, you could also add a file protected by build tag, with the specific values for the board you are using. That way the "default" case for your board "just works".
@trichner what do you think?
Sounds good! I gave it a try with build flags, was this what you had in mind?