wide font

[n1LS]

fixes #885

• adds a 3rd font
• updates the font data selection in chargfx.c
• unifies the references to the font names and count in Configuration.cpp/ThemeView.cpp

[democloid]

I don't see a reason to split the fonts into different files and some copyright notices get lost on the way, can we revert that change and keep everything on one file?

Can you also document on the description of this PR how it affects the flash usage?

[maks]

@n1LS could I also ask if you could attach here a image of what the entire font looks like now in the current state of the PR code as you previously did on comments in the associated issue or is the image in #885 (comment) the latest version that matches what is in this PR?

[n1LS]

@democloid: Sure thing, will do.
My thought process: Considering you are enforcing an 80-col limit in 2025 it seemed reasonable to split a 350-line header file, that'll only get longer with the added special characters ;-) Also it's generated resources - not code and should imo be separated to be one resource per file (easier tracking of changes, easier to regenerate, shorter files, ...)

Flash usage:

Building master:

Memory region         Used Size  Region Size  %age Used
           FLASH:      675004 B         2 MB     32.19%

Building feature/wide-font:

Memory region         Used Size  Region Size  %age Used
           FLASH:      676412 B         2 MB     32.25%

PR increases flash usage by 1408 B (1536 B would be the raw font data)

@maks Here's a render of the font as it's currently included:

[maks]

Brill, thanks @n1LS !
In regards to the header file, we're not likely to ever change the existing fonts and quite unlikely to add more fonts (not including the upcoming extended chars) so I think its not a big concern to have it all in one file.

My one last bit of feedback is a personal aesthetic one: to me the lower case f looks rather out of place with the rest of the font. Otherwise its a ✅ for me.

[n1LS]

@maks Pick your poison :-)

[maks]

@maks Pick your poison :-)

For me personally I prefer number 3, but really would be ok with any of them.

[n1LS]

Updated to reflect the current state of the code.

[maks]

LGTM 👍🏻

[democloid]

Looks great, thanks!