The issue is more so how to wire the LDO into the rest of the circuit so that it will function with it in place or not. Bridging the pads of the LDO itself to bypass it is an option I was considering, the issue is seeing if a resistor is the correct size to do that or if I can adjust the pads to allow that to work.
I am thinking that since you don’t need the diode with the LDO, I might be able to use that as a bit of a “switch”. Gonna have to play with it some.
I like the click to advance the mode and press-hold for ramping but like was said, how would you turn it off?
Maybe a double click to advance modes? Or double click to turn off?
It would do it's usual thing - single click thru the modes, OFF being one of the modes. Also there's a mode "lock-in" time - when a mode is on for like 1.2 secs, the mode is locked in, then the next single click turns the light OFF -- all standard, always has been in my e-switch firmware from the beginning (2+ years), way before "Narsil". For this new support, if you are locked in a mode and press click&hold, it will ramp, so you can still easily change the brightness, and after press&hold, you want to switch back to mode set level, simply click within 1.2 secs of ramping, and you are back to toggling modes.
What I'm sacrificing is reverse mode navigation for 1 mode to the previous mode, but ramping can still accomplish that because ramping will implement the ramping rules I have now - you can change the direction of ramping as long as you click&hold within 1.2 secs of the last click&hold. Again, nothing different there - it's what I've implemented in ramping based on requests in the BLF Q8 thread.
The double-click, 3X and 4X clicks in ramping now will have to stay to allow quick access to max/turbo, battery check and soft lock-out, respectively. I'm not crazy bout this because fast single click sequences can get confused with multi-clicks, but you have fit everything in somehow.
Note: Always single click ON, single click OFF - that's the priority I don't want to sacrifice 
Ohh - click to ON is always to last output level (memory), whether you got there from ramping or a pre-defined mode level. If you hold for 2 seconds or more, 1 click OFF.
What could really be simpler, better, easier? 
Wow! Sweet!
This is great! I hate lights that make you hold down to turn it off. I like lights with one click off. I like lights with immediate access to low and turbo from both on or off. Sounds like your doing pretty good!!! 
Very nice, I have honestly never used your firmware before as none of my e-switch lights have aftermarket drivers in them except the SRK’s. Those use a 13A though so obviously not gonna work with Narsil. Just never had a need for an e-switch firmware before besides SRK drivers and they did what I needed at the time.
With the Q8 coming out though and the 4s driver I plan to design for it (if PD doesn’t want to do it first that is), E-switch is becoming more important.
Your planned changes sound perfect.
I don’t think I’m going to touch that one, it’s all yours
At the budget levels, most of the e-switch lights had a horrible UI. There's been lots of improvements though in the last year or so. Also some don't lend themselves to be modded with a replacement driver because of the way the switch is mounted, mostly. I much prefer the e-switch though - the switch is in the correct place for the way you would normally hold a flashlight, plus more features, more consistent means to clock and monitor the switch, easier to activate, etc. Just a lot of advantages for the UI/UX.
From a practical standpoint I have no problems with the E-switch personally, I just have had no real need for it.
For me so far it has been the e-switch lights I do have are just not real mod friendly and work good enough to not make me want to dig into them, even if the UI sucks.
From a tactical standpoint I prefer Clicky lights simply because the switch is always in the same place and you can easily find it no matter what the conditions are. I find I am always playing a game of where is the switch with my e-switch lights in the dark.
Now my favorite setup is the dual switch light. You have the clicky to turn it on/off/lockout and the e-switch to adjust modes or even turn it on/off as well if you want. The issue here is there are so few lights with dual switches.
LOL, well I guess that settles that.
Honestly I think I will straight up copy your Q8 driver, add a ring of 7135’s and then split the contact side into separate pads to allow for easy conversion to 2s2p or 4s. Much like the early prototype I posted earlier. It should work with normal 1S setups as well and allow for 3 channel usage with the normal Q8 setup.
I still have to keep myself from building a buck driver for the Q8, I want an XHP35 version so dang bad lol. If only there was a cheaper way to prototype it then the $15 a pop from ohspark for those size drivers.
Yea, I like dual switches but adding one, like to a Manker U21, means you add like 10+ mm more to it's length. The ThorFire JM07 (not sold anymore) is a great F13 size&style dual switch light. Plus many of the Crelant models, Warsun's, Yezl Y3's, etc.. I got quite a collection of them 
.
I like these as well. Two switched gives incredible versatility, but it can also be very simple for newbs, depending how you set up your FW. I was really excited for the X5R from eagleeye, but I haven’t figured out a way to get one of our drivers in it yet
Nice one! I am kind of neurotic about my full 7135 modes :laughing: .
For the LDO/D1/C2. You can get away with only C2, up-sizing it to 1 uF or 2.2 uF.
A 100 nF C3 beside the MCU would be a luxury for what we are doing.
I did not even consider D1. Should select an LDO that limits reverse voltage at its output…
Ok, that makes things a bit easier, still gonna be interesting actually routing the traces though.
The LDO I was looking at using before (actually ordered a few at some point), did indeed have built in reverse voltage protection, so I could possibly use D1 as some kind of jumper to select which one you will be using. Leave D1 off and the LDO is the input voltage, install D1 and it bypasses the LDO.
I think RMM did something like this on the SRK FET drivers IIRC.
I thought mine were coming a couple days ago but when I got the package I realized it was just a few of pd’s tail light rings. (No offense PD 
) Anyone able to test one of these yet? Mine are now in the mail for realz.
I tested a few now including the one in the OP/a few posts up. TomE said he got one built although not sure if he did much more then that.
Besides needing to re-calibrate the LVP in the tripledown firmware for the 22k R1 resistor, it is working great for me. Gonna build a triple 219C S2+ soon that will be the true test for it. If it can handle that it should be able to handle basically anything.
The L2 with XP-L HI is pulling ~5.75 amps, so it has no problem delivering the power thats for sure, that is with the “worse” NXP FET as well, running low on SIR800/400’s so been using up my supply of NXP’s for the single emitter lights.
Sorry if I missed something or hibga have changed
Soda can lights have that sweet parallel setup of the cells.
Is there a way your 46mm driver can be used plain simple like that too?
If indeed the FET+1 is going to be abandoned for a different setup and Tom is going to work that into Narsil I would very much like to see a big driver capable of running in parallel.
Maybe some bridges to connect and extra pads or tracing to allow use of 2,7-4,2V input parts only?
don’t shoot me if I am not even know where the nail to hit on the head is please
Oh and +1 on the text below
Well the Q8 driver seems to be set but as an after market option I still plan on knocking out a 46mm version of the Avenger at some point. Really depends more on what happens with the Q8 and Narsil going forward so I can plan it out properly.
The driver in the OP would work fine in a 4P setup as it is with a bridge across all the contact pads. That was already designed into it by either a solder blob or by using 0805 0 ohm resistors.
Or the best option for a 4P setup and what I would do it use a copper contact plate like I used in my other SRK drivers. This would connect all the pads and improve the wear resistance at the same time.
This is the nice thing about separating the MCU and LED ground’s in this case. You can adjust the cell setup without any changes needed to the driver itself besides how the contact pads are setup.
Although all of that said, I think I would just swap to indivdual MCPCB’s so I could wire the LED’s in series and run the driver in 4S. This should improve the overall power delivered to the LED’s since there would be much less voltage drop.
Realy? You would do 4s over 4p? I can’t recall but I feel I’ve read 4p would be superior. But maybe it depends on many factors…