screen orientations are hardcoded

[brianmay]

Some screens require different madctl 0x26 settings, and e.g. will appear reversed without.

For a possible solution see: https://github.com/yuri91/ili9341-rs/commit/8a4aee95c2934cd6aaac4b243ab8bda24d0b7475

Although I tend to wonder if maybe this solution is overkill. All that is required I think is for the set_orientation function to take a parameter for the required madctl parameter, and an orientation parameter so it can work out the size (see #8).

[brianmay]

This would be my recommended fix:

--- a/src/lib.rs
+++ b/src/lib.rs
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 //! This crate provides a generic ddisplay driver to connect to TFT displays
 //! that implement the [MIPI DSI](https://www.mipi.org/specifications/dsi).
 //! Currently only supports SPI with DC pin setups via the [display_interface]
-//!  
+//!
 //! An optional batching of draws is supported via the `batch` feature (default on)
 //!
 //! ## Example
@@ -64,8 +64,6 @@ where
 pub enum Orientation {
     Portrait = 0b0000_0000,         // no inverting
     Landscape = 0b0110_0000,        // invert column and page/column order
-    PortraitSwapped = 0b1100_0000,  // invert page and column order
-    LandscapeSwapped = 0b1010_0000, // invert page and page/column order
 }

 impl Default for Orientation {
@@ -147,9 +145,12 @@ where
     ///
     /// Sets display [Orientation]
     ///
-    pub fn set_orientation(&mut self, orientation: Orientation) -> Result<(), Error<RST::Error>> {
+    pub fn set_orientation(&mut self, orientation: Orientation, invertx: bool, inverty: bool) -> Result<(), Error<RST::Error>> {
         self.write_command(Instruction::MADCTL)?;
-        self.write_data(&[orientation as u8])?;
+        let mut data = orientation as u8;
+        if invertx { data = data ^ 0x40 };
+        if inverty { data = data ^ 0x80 };
+        self.write_data(&[data])?;
         self.orientation = orientation;
         Ok(())
     }

If this is acceptable I can do a PR.

[almindor]

Could we close this one in favor of #8 please? (or the other way around)

[brianmay]

Doesn't bother me if we do. I considered them distinct issues when I opened the reports, but there was considerable overlap so I used one PR to solve both of them.

[brianmay]

I think this was accidentally closed :-)