Closed jlpoltrack closed 5 months ago
many thx. I was thinking over it yesterday and while this is the obvious approach I'm not sure it is the most effective. Point is we do have so many notes and this particular one is pretty lengthy. And I doubt the majority of folks are actually interested in the details.
What crossed my mind is if we shouldn't maybe extend the table. This would make it shorted and also give it more visibility. Like adding a field "LoRa chip set" and a field "compatibility"
for R9 it could then say
LoRa chip set: SX1276 compatibility: incompatible with devices using SX126x chip set, such as xxxx. Compatible with ELRS 900 equipment.
and so on for the 868/915 hardware
what do you think?
What crossed my mind is if we shouldn't maybe extend the table.
I like this idea - I've gone ahead and given this a try for the R9 page. Let me know if this makes sense and I will expand to all the others.
nice
I guess I would move the two new field to the end, but that's taste
I guess I would write "Incompatible with SX126x hardware (SeeedStudio Wio-E5, EBYTE E77 MBL, E77 Easy Solder)."
When we refer to boards we IMHO should use a consistent naming. Not every newcomer may assocaite E5 Mini with SeeedStudio Wio-E5 Mini.
But that's really just my personal taste.
If it is missed that the explanation is gone, I guess we could create a separate page with just that explanation and link to it. But frankly, I guess most won't miss the technical reasons.
I'm not sure what you think, but to me it looks like a good pattern to apply for all sx127x/sx126x boards.
Expanded to the other hardware specific pages, cleaned up the note on the ELRS receivers page.
lgtm !!
MANY THX
this really should remove any such confusion
Note added to all 868/915 hardware pages stating that SX127x cannot be used with SX126x hardware.
To address: https://github.com/olliw42/mLRS-docu/issues/166