finding short library on vl53lox

[bogel_pylo]

I am looking for the shortest library for the vl53lox. I am using the b-l475e-iot01a1 board and i just need some measures on the vl53lox.I look on github but there are just a lot of files so I would like to know if  a less heavy approach exist . Furthermore , I work on cube mx and cube ide.

 

[John E KVAM]

This is going to sound strange, but if you want a small library, consider switching to the VL53L4CD.

The chips are pin-compatible. And have exactly the same shape. 

The differences are that the L0 advertises a max distance of 2M, but has an effective distance of 1.3M when looking at people. The L4CD has a max distance of 1.3M, but the effective distance is also 1.3M.

The L0X is only linear above 4cm or so. The L4CD is linear down to 1mm. 

The L0X has a field of view of 27 degrees, the L4CD FoV is 18 degrees.

But the L4CD has an UltraLite driver - which is only a few K. 

The L4CD is our, latest, best, least expensive 940nm ToF single-zone ToF device.

the L4CD is also fully integrated into the STM32CubeMX.

Unfortunately, the VL53L0X is not.

I know this does NOT answer your question, but at least have a look at the VL53L4CD and see if it works for you. It would save you some development time.

- john

 

[bogel_pylo]

Thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately, it is a school project so I can only use this board . Do you know any  tutorial for the installation of all those files and/or do you know a good library for this sensor ?

[Andrew Neil]

---

@bogel_pylo wrote:

it is a school project

---

So is the size of the library actually causing you any problem(s) ?

If not - why worry? 

[bogel_pylo]

Yes. It is the size but my biggest concern is the compatibility . For example, I found this library  https://github.com/MarcelMG/VL53L0X-STM32F103 but is not for the b-l475e-iot01a1 board.

[Andrew Neil]

---

@bogel_pylo wrote:

Yes. It is the size .

---

But why is that a concern - again, is the size of the library actually causing you any problem(s) ?

 

---

@bogel_pylo wrote:

my biggest concern is the compatibility . 

---

Not sure how a smaller library is going to be any more "compatible"?

More likely the opposite: a smaller library may be more tightly coupled to specific hardware - because it doesn't have the extra code to make it generic...