| ▲ | inferiorhuman 13 hours ago |
| Right, but you're not really competing on processor speed. You're competing on maturity of peripherals where the RP doesn't really match up PIO or not. Edit: I see you're comparing it to the 3.2 but I suspect most folks are going to be comparing your offering to the 4.x. |
|
| ▲ | alibarber 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yeah - I don't really consider this comparable for my uses which rely heavily on the DSP and processing power of the Teensy itself either. Drama and whatnot aside I'm not really sure why anyone would buy the (considerably more expensive) Teensy over something RP based if RP was suitable for their needs already. Interestingly despite being a Teensy fan I have found myself reaching more towards the RP when I can because I can't stand the Arduino API and much prefer the RP SDK. I do use Teensy without Teensyduino (Makefile based) and also a bit of the CMSIS-DSP stuff directly - but it's kinda clunky IMO. |
| |
| ▲ | ahepp 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | I've been interested to hear more about use cases for these "hybrid" MCUs, can you share a bit about why you chose that over something like a Cortex-A running linux, or an SoC with -A and -M cores? | | |
| ▲ | alibarber 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's a good question - unfortunately I don't really have a good answer... Almost all of my embedded activities are for a my own hobby purposes, and I just like the ability to go 'as low as I can' with projects on MCUs. It's nice to be able to use the device's peripherals as much as possible (hardware DSP etc) and I'm not confident in how I'd do that on a Linux based system. I'm in to building my own ham radio Software Defined receivers and it's nice to keep it completely real time. If I were to be doing this stuff professionally (and I am very close to people who do at work) then yeah I'd probably be using Zephyr or something. | | |
| ▲ | ahepp 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah interesting! I work on (very expensive) SDRs and we make pretty heavy use of Xilinx Zynq Ultrascale SoCs. They combine Cortex-A, Cortex-R, and FPGA fabric all in one package, with some fancy interconnects. So you can handle the hard realtime stuff on an RTOS or in the FPGA, then send the data over to the application processor with a hard float ALU to crunch some numbers (or build some kind of dsp IP into the FPGA, idk much about that side of it). I've also seen some cool stuff with the BeagleBone products, which have a few TI custom architecture DSPs and "realtime units" which you can communicate with via Linux. But yeah, I can certainly see how just doing it all on a super fast MCU could be easier and cheaper without the backing of commercial enterprises. I've always thought it would be cool to design a "poor man's zynq" hat for a SBC. Stick a RP3050 and a Lattice FPGA on there and set up some SPI / UART connections. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ptorrone 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| it will have benefits over the 4.x - we can always spin up a version with the iMX chipset (we have a metro board with the little sister chip, iMX RT1011 already in stock) - tbh if we did something with the iMX RT106x we'd probably start with a Metro (Arduino-shield compatible) or Feather board since that's a super-popular pinout. either way, more hardware is better and we don't want to just give people the same-old-same-old... as we mentioned there's lots of things that we can add to make the board useful to people: SWD, USB C, Lipoly batt, onboard storage, neopixel LED, etc). what peripheral/library are you specifically concerned about? |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you replace the Teensy 4.x it would have to be something very close to the same pinout, foot print, cost and features otherwise it would just be a new product. Ideally you would find a way to source the Teensy directly bypassing Sparkfun. | | |
| ▲ | ptorrone 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | sparkfun is the single source supplier (and now maker of the product). | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, obviously, but they don't make the chips, so can't you just source the exact same chip, make thing pin compatible and call it a day? Then you'd have a drop in replacement, any changes you make will cause disruption for people downstream. https://www.nxp.com/part/MIMXRT1062DVL6A | |
| ▲ | 15155 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Spinning an IMXRT1062/IMXRT1064 design sans the terrible Teensy bootloader should take a day or two at most. These chips have perfectly-fine ROM USB bootloaders and SWD, don't ruin them by adding extra garbage. | | |
| ▲ | djmips 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The layout of the Teensy 4.x was challenging as I recall with the speeds involved. But maybe you are a demigod of compact high clock designs. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nothing on that board is remotely high speed or challenging. USB HS on a board that small is a non issue: it's one measly differential pair with easy impedance requirements. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | inferiorhuman 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mostly I'm just leery of software defined peripherals being at the mercy of whatever community springs up around them, nothing specific. In terms of a Metro then yeah, something to slot in where the Due was absolutely with high speed USB, 10/100 ethernet, CAN FD, and all that jazz that wouldn't work on a $10 board. A SAMV70 successor to the Due? NXP just seems antithetical to an open platform. Then again Arduino went with Renesas, and they're… not great. Otherwise it's the openness that would pique my interest. SWD headers, yes 100%. But also the documentation. No half-assed SVDs, buggy closed source flash algorithms (Microchip), wholly undocumented peripherals (looking at you Renesas), stuff like that. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | All chip manufacturers are alike in this respect, unfortunately. That whole industry believes that they thrive on secrecy and that simply properly speccing their hardware would already be a massive competitive risk. | | |
| ▲ | inferiorhuman 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nah, it's a spectrum. Companies like NXP and Infineon are at one end. NXP wants a ton of personal information to access even the most basic docs on some of its chips, sometimes even an NDA. Infineon won't even acknowledge you for the most part. Companies like STM, RP, and TI are at the other end. STM got super popular because they're cheap and the documentation is incredibly easy to get at. I think RP is following suit. Renesas puts out some documentation, but it's really rough. Anything that has even a whiff of crypto is completely undocumented. They're also squatting on a few Rust crates where Espressif actually hired a Rust developer to work on their Rust HAL. The most comical thing is that while they version their reference manual they don't seem to update it and instead issue a ton of broad errata that apply to multiple manuals. Before the acquisition Atmel's documentation was well written and organized. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's fair. Even so, the majority of the companies whose chips I would consider for specialized electronics seem to be so far down on the paranoid spectrum that it hinders their business. | | |
| ▲ | inferiorhuman 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, some do, but some are coming around and some were never there. Which is why it's important for a company like Adafruit to pick a manufacturer that is towards the open end of the spectrum. Unfortunately NXP isn't that manufacturer even if their silicon is more powerful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There is a place for a cheaper 5v tolerant microcontroller, but that’s more of a commodity space and probably not worth competing in for most. |
