|
If you want all of them to work properly, it does not really matter, you would have to solve all problems anyway. But then ST7789S and ILI9341 look very similar, while SSD1351 is clearly different.
Assuming nothing else is a factor (e.g. all hardware looks equally reliable) I would start with ST7789S or ILI9341, whichever you get the most recent datasheet for. Or the most intelligible one, as not all Asian-to-English translations are equally successful.
Luc Pattyn [My Articles]
The Windows 11 "taskbar" is disgusting. It should be at the left of the screen, with real icons, with text, progress, etc. They downgraded my developer PC to a bloody iPhone.
|
|
|
|
|
Since you're asking for opinion: You seem to be a very creative person, so I'm guessing that you have ideas bubbling away on the back burner of your mind all the time. Back burner this one. Let it rest from up-front work while you work on other projects, and the answer might just hit you along the way.
|
|
|
|
|
1. Optimised code that does not work is not optimised code.. it's broken code.
2. Get on and fix it - use a good LA to look at timing and data value differences on the bus of when it works/compared to not working.
3. Do not release known broken code.
4. Consider people asking to use DMA....
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like it when people are pedantic. You know what I mean in #1.
The DMA is actually the only part that's working consistently.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I do know what you mean. But the point is consumers of your library will not know (or really care?) about the history of the code, they just want to use code that works and is good quality. If perhaps you change the wording and asked if consumers would like un-optimised code or broken code, neither sound all that appealing. 
|
|
|
|
|
As I said in my OP though maybe I wasn't clear, I wouldn't be releasing code that didn't work. I'd simply dial back the optimizations until they weren't there anymore, leaving it functioning the same way the existing released code is (at least for SPI)
I should add, I've already decided not to release it, so this exchange is moot, outside simply the hypothetical. Just FYI.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I see 
|
|
|
|
|
it's been a couple years since I last wrote a SPI -> display setup, but if I'm remembering correct there is a minimum time threshold for the slave device to register the tick.
Usually the pdf for the display chip should have the min and max values. But I'm likely saying something you already know.
have you tried putting in some empty wait commands between processing to slow it down a few cycles and see if the displays not working correctly start working again? if they do, can you make a make a couple variables when initializing the code like: _DSP_FAST =0, _DSP_MED = 16, _DSP_SLOW = 32 and tie those into wait loops?
whether to release it or not question: I wouldn't unless there is a clear advantage for your optimized code like a solid 10% gain (or more) in clock ticks that can be shed over to other processing tasks, but then you should have a disclaimer for what displays work good, and what ones you know don't.
gosh I miss working on that stuff.
good luck on what ever direction you are going.
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone actually use Log4J ? I means its like 1999...stuff ? ... I thought there were other diagnotsic api and services... the so called article writers who get paid to write doom to pay their rent...say that "The Log4J Vulnerability Will Haunt the Internet for Years"...........Its like replace "The covid pandemic Will Haunt the world for Years'......damn...
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
When I heard about it a bit over a week ago, I scanned all my file systems. The only bits that came close were some historical backups of long-dead machines.
The first attempted exploit in my server logs was at 2021-12-11 00:28Z.
Since then the "villains" are using all sorts of cute encoding tricks to get jndi past dumb filters that look for it in plain text.
They account for currently around 7 or 8% of the noise traffic (i.e. by IP address, not hostname).
And yes, I think there is a considerable "beatup" component. Apart from Minecraft, I haven't heard of any significant exploits.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did a scan on my machine. IntelliJ Idea uses it.
|
|
|
|
|
Where I work (Windows shop) we only have two candidates, TeamCity and Jira, both were not affected.
|
|
|
|
|
Well plenty of 1999 stuff is still running in production in plenty of places.. why changes something that is working hey?!
AS400 and Cobol is much older and still widely in use! 
modified 18-Dec-21 5:13am.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Linux Jenkins build server and whilst the Jenkins core doesn't use log4j the groovy scripting language does and possibly some plugins.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Another reason not to blindly jump on any "new" framework, just because it's "new".
BTW, my team is full of programming gods, and we don't do logging. At all.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Programming gods wouldn't use a third-party logging library anyway; if needed, they'd roll their own.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand it...
A logging library should simply log messages, right?
How can a logging library become vulnerable? I think only if it does taking actions for specific messages. And that is not the job of a logging tool 
[Edit]
Good explanation I found here: All About Log4j Log4Shell 0-Day Vulnerability - CVE-2021-44228[^]
modified 18-Dec-21 7:02am.
|
|
|
|
|
Any library can become vulnerable if it doesn't bounds check everything.
Back when I was a youth - and I don't recommend this - I rooted a server using their print daemon.
It *is* weird that it's happening with the JVM, given java code is managed and thus relatively hardened, but I don't know *anything* about the exploit so I can only speak about exploits in general.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. But a logging tool which becomes vulnerable by the data it should log is something idiotic, at least for me
|
|
|
|
|
Well, in their defense, because of the string, date and file manipulation there are plenty of potential opportunities to exploit a library like that.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I heard it was an exploit in native code. A perfect example on why you should avoid native libraries.
"God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, that makes sense.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
They are poking and probing:
https://lous-stuff.com[^]
#4 the other day.
>64
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently Ab Initio uses it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
