I don't know, I probably think a lot of things that are wrong. Up until your last post I assumed the waveforms were provided by E Ink themselves. When you mentioned different panels needing different waveforms I assumed you must have meant per unit, not per model of display, because the latter is obvious. If they were unique per individual display that calibration would need to be done in the factory. Did I misunderstand, and you meant per model of display, and not per unit?
Come to think of this, I can verify this right now. Here are the results of `sha256sum /var/lib/uboot/waveform.bin` on two different Remarkable devices of the same model/SKU:
You'll have to take my word I didn't copy the same line twice... but as you can see, they're the same. So I don't necessarily think the waveforms are different per unit or batch.
> You say that as if it is unique to E Ink. Whereas its standard across the entire display industry.
Sure. But I was talking about why I bought a Remarkable instead of building an open source e-ink laptop--certainly not a product with volumes high enough to get any manufacturer to pay attention. Obviously I would have the same problem if I were trying to build a regular laptop with an LCD screen (or modern CPU, or WiFi...). For hobbyist projects you're certainly not getting any support from manufacturers. The best one can hope for is open datasheets/manuals and even that is pretty rare...
> You'll have to take my word I didn't copy the same line twice... but as you can see, they're the same. So I don't necessarily think the waveforms are different per unit or batch.
I believe you. Maybe they've solved said problems and now have waveforms that work reliably across multiple batches.
But looking at Kindle, you can see there's a different wbf for each panel batch.
I don't know, I probably think a lot of things that are wrong. Up until your last post I assumed the waveforms were provided by E Ink themselves. When you mentioned different panels needing different waveforms I assumed you must have meant per unit, not per model of display, because the latter is obvious. If they were unique per individual display that calibration would need to be done in the factory. Did I misunderstand, and you meant per model of display, and not per unit?
Come to think of this, I can verify this right now. Here are the results of `sha256sum /var/lib/uboot/waveform.bin` on two different Remarkable devices of the same model/SKU:
185515bebf37d3e9d99ffa1f13a2804bbb2b64464fa6fc5067475fb6f65ff6b0 /var/lib/uboot/waveform.bin 185515bebf37d3e9d99ffa1f13a2804bbb2b64464fa6fc5067475fb6f65ff6b0 /var/lib/uboot/waveform.bin
You'll have to take my word I didn't copy the same line twice... but as you can see, they're the same. So I don't necessarily think the waveforms are different per unit or batch.
> You say that as if it is unique to E Ink. Whereas its standard across the entire display industry.
Sure. But I was talking about why I bought a Remarkable instead of building an open source e-ink laptop--certainly not a product with volumes high enough to get any manufacturer to pay attention. Obviously I would have the same problem if I were trying to build a regular laptop with an LCD screen (or modern CPU, or WiFi...). For hobbyist projects you're certainly not getting any support from manufacturers. The best one can hope for is open datasheets/manuals and even that is pretty rare...