search

olliw42 / mLRS

2.4 GHz & 915/868 MHz & 433 MHz/70 cm LoRa based telemetry and radio link for remote controlled vehicles
GNU General Public License v3.0
292 stars 66 forks source link

add llcc68 chip support？ #19

Closed rsd1987 closed 1 year ago

rsd1987 commented 2 years ago

Hi Olliw, Semtech llcc68 is same to sx126x，only lacks some lower speed in lora mode，but is really cheaper than sx126x.

olliw42 commented 2 years ago

@rsd1987 thx for the suggestion, I wasn't aware of that chip I did look a bit into the datasheets, and could not really find a difference, i.e., it seems to me it could run already with the current code, or with really minor changes looking at mouser, yes, it is cheaper ... but it is not really substantially cheaper if anyone submits a PR adding support of it, and uses it, I will review it with much pleasure

jlpoltrack commented 1 year ago

Just a quick note, I've ordered two eByte modules with LLCC68:

  1. E220-400M30S
  2. E220-900M30S

I looked through the datasheet and I think they should be a drop-in replacement to use with the SX126x driver. Will follow-up once I do some testing.

olliw42 commented 1 year ago

great yo, I too had the impression it might be simply a drop in but as always, the proof is in the taste of the pudding will be interesting

jlpoltrack commented 1 year ago

FYI, ELRS team found worse performance on SX126x and LLCC68 compared to SX1276 - thread here: https://forum.lora-developers.semtech.com/t/llcc68-poor-sensitivity/1480/14

olliw42 commented 1 year ago

interesting thx for digging this out

I'm not sure I feel much discouraged by this however. I mean, it is certainly sad, and for those who want to reach the absolute limit no good news, but the sx1262 system otherwise offers so many advantages that - at least for me - it's still my prefereed choice in this frequency range. Among the advantages: 31 Hz mode, STM32WLE (= much simpler builds&designs) in form of modules, a suitable dev board.

I myself also haven't seen the potential of 868/915 materialize so far, with both sx1262 based systems and the R9 system the link gets bad in my enviroment here at rssi's of about -100, not very different to what I see with 2.4 GHz, and far off any -110 or even -120 numbers ...

it's an important aspect to watch for sure however

jlpoltrack commented 1 year ago

Quick notes on E220-900M30S module progress:

Edit: Got it working, and seem to get 1 Watt with gain set to 10:

IMG_1214

jlpoltrack commented 1 year ago

@olliw42 I think it's okay to close this. Was able to get E220 w/ LLCC68 working using the SX126x driver without any changes.

olliw42 commented 1 year ago

so we can add LLCC68 as being supported to the main readme page? that's cool THX!!!

gitryz commented 1 year ago

@olliw42 I think it's okay to close this. Was able to get E220 w/ LLCC68 working using the SX126x driver without any changes.

Does this mean that the e22 module(sx1262) can be directly replaced with the e220 module(llcc68) without making any code changes? (They have the same pin definition)

jlpoltrack commented 1 year ago

@olliw42 I think it's okay to close this. Was able to get E220 w/ LLCC68 working using the SX126x driver without any changes.

Does this mean that the e22 module(sx1262) can be directly replaced with the e220 module(llcc68) without making any code changes? (They have the same pin definition)

The only change needed for E220 modules is that you need to specify that they use crystal oscillators in the HAL (instead of TCXO). This is a define and an example can be found here: https://github.com/olliw42/mLRS/blob/main/mLRS/Common/hal/tx-hal-E77-MBLKit-wle5cc.h#L103