Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update rcdevice.c #9348

Conversation

FLahner23
Copy link

See issue:
#9343

@@ -270,6 +270,10 @@ static void runcamDeviceParseV2DeviceInfo(rcdeviceResponseParsingContext_t *ctx)
// definition of runcamDeviceInfo_t to know more)
static void runcamDeviceGetDeviceInfo(runcamDevice_t *device)
{
// preset with rc split 2s support which has issue to respond
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This probably should not be blindly enabled, as we are asking the device for information that should populate the features.

We should probably fix the protocol differences with this camera, so we can read the featrures correctly, or at least have a configuration variable to enable this hack.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Change it as you like it is hot fix for now. Having feature variable would be good for diagnostics via CLI.Also I noticed that runcam attempt interval variable was removed in some Inav version as there was related workaround before.
I would add possibility to set features manually and let user to configure/map what he needs.

@b14ckyy
Copy link
Collaborator

b14ckyy commented Mar 22, 2024

Are you still planning to provide this? When validated, we can merge it for 8.0

@FLahner23
Copy link
Author

Are you still planning to provide this? When validated, we can merge it for 8.0

Dont know how to add new parameter to iNav e.g. RuncamSplitEnable. When enabled the added lines of code will be enabled. If you know that you can you add this parameter handling here and move it to validation

@mmosca mmosca closed this Mar 22, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants