Skip to content

Conversation

@pkendall64
Copy link
Collaborator

Add support for RX as TX to EPS32 C3 targets.

For RX as TX and debugging
@pkendall64 pkendall64 added enhancement 🪄 New feature or request V3.6 👂 labels Jul 13, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@mha1 mha1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

works fine using a BotLabDynamics BotLink1 2.4GHz RX as TX (Unified_ESP32C3_2400_TX)

WhatsApp Image 2025-07-14 at 12 17 06_9a0d866c

@wimalopaan
Copy link

wimalopaan commented Jul 15, 2025

I got this working on a TuneRx Nano RX/PA with CRSF input via serial.

But PPM input (neither positiv nor negativ) works.

Attached you find the to tested ppm signals. For the first one the low value is about 600mV.

la1 la2

@pkendall64
Copy link
Collaborator Author

But PPM input (neither positiv nor negativ) works.

Could you check again after this latest fix and let me know. Then I'll merge it after verification.

@wimalopaan
Copy link

But PPM input (neither positiv nor negativ) works.

Could you check again after this latest fix and let me know. Then I'll merge it after verification.

Sure!
Polarity of the PPM signal doen't matter?

@pkendall64
Copy link
Collaborator Author

pkendall64 commented Jul 16, 2025

Polarity of the PPM signal doen't matter?

I plugged mine into the CPPM pin on the JR bay of a TX16S and set the config to PPM output. So it works with that. Theoretically it should work with both polarities.

@wimalopaan
Copy link

Polarity of the PPM signal doen't matter?

I plugged mine into the CPPM pin on the JR bay of a TX16S and set the config to PPM output. So it works with that. Theoretically it should work with both polarities.

Still doesn't work, neither with TX16S ppm (neg.) nor with my old handset (tested both neg. and pos.)

@wimalopaan
Copy link

As it recognizes correct CRSF input, the hw def should be ok. For the record, here it is for the TuneRC Nano RX/PA:

{"serial_rx":20,"serial_tx":21,"radio_busy":3,"radio_dio1":1,"radio_miso":5,"radio_mosi":4,"radio_nss":7,"radio_rst":2,"radio_sck":6,"power_rxen":18,"
power_txen":19,"power_lna_gain":12,"power_min":0,"power_high":3,"power_max":3,"power_default":3,"power_control":0,"power_values":[-7,-4,-1,1],"led_rgb
":8,"led_rgb_isgrb":true,"button":9}

@pkendall64
Copy link
Collaborator Author

As it recognizes correct CRSF input, the hw def should be ok. For the record, here it is for the TuneRC Nano RX/PA:

{"serial_rx":20,"serial_tx":21,"radio_busy":3,"radio_dio1":1,"radio_miso":5,"radio_mosi":4,"radio_nss":7,"radio_rst":2,"radio_sck":6,"power_rxen":18," power_txen":19,"power_lna_gain":12,"power_min":0,"power_high":3,"power_max":3,"power_default":3,"power_control":0,"power_values":[-7,-4,-1,1],"led_rgb ":8,"led_rgb_isgrb":true,"button":9}

To use PPM you will need to set serial_tx and serial_tx to the same pin i.e. 21.

@wimalopaan
Copy link

As it recognizes correct CRSF input, the hw def should be ok. For the record, here it is for the TuneRC Nano RX/PA:
{"serial_rx":20,"serial_tx":21,"radio_busy":3,"radio_dio1":1,"radio_miso":5,"radio_mosi":4,"radio_nss":7,"radio_rst":2,"radio_sck":6,"power_rxen":18," power_txen":19,"power_lna_gain":12,"power_min":0,"power_high":3,"power_max":3,"power_default":3,"power_control":0,"power_values":[-7,-4,-1,1],"led_rgb ":8,"led_rgb_isgrb":true,"button":9}

To use PPM you will need to set serial_tx and serial_tx to the same pin i.e. 21.

Oh, my bad, didn't know that!
Used the rx pin number (20) for both rx and tx since my adapter cable uses that -> works perfect.

Q: why does it need both definitions to be the same?)

@pkendall64
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Q: why does it need both definitions to be the same?)

Because we coded it that way. i.e. if the module is internal full-duplex, then why on earth would you want PPM!
PPM would only be for external modules and we co-opt the half-duplex pin into auto-detecting the signal.

@pkendall64 pkendall64 merged commit 510b487 into ExpressLRS:3.x.x-maintenance Jul 16, 2025
51 checks passed
@pkendall64 pkendall64 deleted the c3-tx-support branch July 16, 2025 07:42
@mha1 mha1 mentioned this pull request Aug 1, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement 🪄 New feature or request V3.6 👂

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants