<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>I80 on Nalar</title>
    <link>https://nalar.dev/tags/i80/</link>
    <description>Recent content in I80 on Nalar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nalar.dev/tags/i80/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>ESP-IDF LCD APIs Depend on the Selected SoC Target</title>
      <link>https://nalar.dev/esp-idf-lcd-apis-depend-on-the-selected-soc-target/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nalar.dev/esp-idf-lcd-apis-depend-on-the-selected-soc-target/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;An ESP-IDF project can include &lt;code&gt;esp_lcd_panel_io.h&lt;/code&gt; successfully and still fail on &lt;code&gt;esp_lcd_i80_bus_config_t&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;esp_lcd_new_i80_bus()&lt;/code&gt;. That combination looks contradictory until the build target is taken into account.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;code&gt;esp_lcd&lt;/code&gt; is a framework, not a promise that every ESP chip exposes every LCD transport. The selected SoC determines which low-level interfaces are compiled into the project. Panel-controller support, such as ILI9341, is another layer again.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That distinction matters when moving code between ESP32 variants.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
