Please don't forget using the USB2 pins for one of the USB ports instead of both of them using USB1... It would make things so much easier for me.
Call to arms | Teensy + SDRAM = true
- Thread starter Dogbone06
- Start date
Gen4.5 already has USB-Host and USB Power Delivery. It’s sort of a facelift I made.
defragster
Senior Member+
- Was just putting blame where it belonged. Getting it hashed out better than linking back to it ... that post didn't get much attn at the time iirc though @Dogbone06 did make a note. It was the @KurtE prior post about 100mm (?) that spawned that post allowing some shield set to get made.DvBd v4 has the double on the end so figured it might be possible - though tougher to handwire.
Wondering if the @KurtE 'variant' scheme might be a good answer to the normalized evolution - but distracted here and not tried.
Also wondering if the 'Alternate' (@jmarsh (?) non SDRAM_T4) might be a better solution and also where SDRAM was active and programmed on 'Reset'
There is, but not without repurposing some of the FlexIO2 pins (from the right hand side of the board). Wouldn't need to do that if the remaining AD_B1_XX pins were added.
Oh okay, thanks!
With regards to that, here's a todo list.
* Add the missing AD_B1_XX pins
* Top left of the board in the spreadsheet image in this thread, there are many GND pins. I will replace a few of them with 5V pins.
* 4.5 already has USB Host and USB-PD (Power Delivery) on that USB-C port. It will ofc stay for gen5.
* 4.5 also has the SD Card slot, which will also stay for gen5.
defragster
Senior Member+
The single 5V pin on current Teensy boards always causes fright here when putting wires in headers ... and it is isolated to a fixed corner
Having them intermixed?
Of course, re-routing all the GND out and shifting/layering in the new pins would be a major change to test proper wiring like a new board.
> worked with a guy in Australia to fit his board for Teensy as alternate drop in MCU - he did a 'simple change' at the last before production and ended up with 5V instead of 3.3V routing to some I/O so the whole effort went to naught.
Last edited:
I’m sorry but I didn’t understand that at all.
Is there any issue with the 5V net on your board?
What did the Australian guy do?
defragster
Senior Member+
Opps: The single 5V pin on current TEENSY boards. Every time I need GND I go to opposite Pin #0 corner of 5V when possible - if I go for GND beside 5V I double-double check for parallax or location error in the header and worry I'll insert into 5V instead of the 5V beside it.
Anecdote was that a simple re-route had the software put 5V where he had connected 3.3V and he didn't notice when he relocated a 'group', and it went to production with 5V wired to what should have been 3.3V. Just saying you know better about re-routing than I do and what is the best path and what is possible without risking having to re-run the board.
I’ll leave one or two blanks between ground and 5V to eliminate human error.
defragster
Senior Member+
Dug out the 32x32 LED matrix board (from 6 years ago) - I corrected 1 of three I got then set them aside as it wasn't easy drop in for Teensy
The 3.3V cut trace to properly route 3.3V for POTs got dropped and needed manual wire runs Pulled the leg up from 5V and manually supplied 3.3V. Brad did some good work to support Teensy 3.x - and was undone with a simple edit
The 3.3V cut trace to properly route 3.3V for POTs got dropped and needed manual wire runs
Pulled the leg up from 5V and manually supplied 3.3V. Brad did some good work to support Teensy 3.x - and was undone with a simple edit 
mjs513
Senior Member+
Not sure what the issue is - to be honest I been bringing out the 5V pin to edge connectors on my T4.x and T3x breakouts without an issue as well as other boards I have done. Just have to be careful with the wiring and check the traces before production. No other comment from me.
defragster
Senior Member+
Wasn't seeing an issue - just a note ... from prior posts some will make boards and some plug wire arrays. Even an ideal total rework couldn't make it 'perfect' for all given potential uses and MEGA class pin count. And any rework has risk.
KurtE
Senior Member+
I can understand the concern about 5v pins... But we have had this issue with every 3.3v only teensy for awhile now.
Also ditto for all of the 3.3v Arduino boards, like: the UNO R4 and GIGA
But they all have a common setup. Note the UNO is setup with the UNO Shield layout, the GIGA with the MEGA layout
Ditto for RPI:
Originally I was going to suggest that maybe, it should follow the sort of Teeny standard. That is
On this side I was going to suggest that maybe move all of the signal pins down 2
and the top 3 pins, be +5v, GND, 3.3V But not sure if that would add some slight headaches of moving all of those down..
EDIT: It probably would be my first choice, but...
Alternatively, simply locate one or more power +5v power pins closer in somewhere. Maybe like the VUSB pin is on
most Teensy boards. Like maybe next to the upper right GND...
The idea is hopefully to be able to create shields which are less than 100mm in length:
Currently your 40 pin connectors are approximately 4" (- a little), but that is 101.6mm
So for example would be nice if I really only needed the first 35 rows to give a little slop.
The 100mm-by-100mm size makes it cheap to make shields using PCBWay. As for OSHPark it adds up quickly
as it is $5 per square inch for 3...
And as I mentioned elsewhere would be nice if all of these pins that correspond to the Arduino
Pin numbers on a Micromod were marked with those numbers like you do on the other side of the board.
Kurt
Also ditto for all of the 3.3v Arduino boards, like: the UNO R4 and GIGA
But they all have a common setup. Note the UNO is setup with the UNO Shield layout, the GIGA with the MEGA layout
Ditto for RPI:
Originally I was going to suggest that maybe, it should follow the sort of Teeny standard. That is
On this side I was going to suggest that maybe move all of the signal pins down 2
and the top 3 pins, be +5v, GND, 3.3V But not sure if that would add some slight headaches of moving all of those down..
EDIT: It probably would be my first choice, but...
Alternatively, simply locate one or more power +5v power pins closer in somewhere. Maybe like the VUSB pin is on
most Teensy boards. Like maybe next to the upper right GND...
The idea is hopefully to be able to create shields which are less than 100mm in length:
Currently your 40 pin connectors are approximately 4" (- a little), but that is 101.6mm
So for example would be nice if I really only needed the first 35 rows to give a little slop.
The 100mm-by-100mm size makes it cheap to make shields using PCBWay. As for OSHPark it adds up quickly
as it is $5 per square inch for 3...
And as I mentioned elsewhere would be nice if all of these pins that correspond to the Arduino
Pin numbers on a Micromod were marked with those numbers like you do on the other side of the board.
Kurt
defragster
Senior Member+
@Dogbone06 - nice you sent that bare board with the first to the USA! Makes a great scanned photo image like in p#1040 and those before!
@Dogbone06 did good work escaping so many pins from the smaller T_4.0 1062 {and those are what are 'in stock' for new boards) - PJRC went to the larger chip for the 4.1 to get the dozen+ extras needed for SDIO and Ethernet on a standard PCB build. Bringing out ADDED V_5.0 pins (now with USB_Host and SDIO Flash socket too) from that 1062 and routing just might be why B0_13 or other pins are as they are - especially given two sides of the one corner are consumed duplicating the NXP SDRAM path. Linear B0 12,13,14 certainly a good point as it may have been 'handy' - but maybe also be wire routing constrained.
The idea of a double row seemed not good for usage - what about a cross row on the one end? It could fit ~1.6 inches for added pins. @Dogbone06 seemed to suggest that could work - would it be usable to get more pins without more length or major rework of the current edge pins?
@Dogbone06 did good work escaping so many pins from the smaller T_4.0 1062 {and those are what are 'in stock' for new boards) - PJRC went to the larger chip for the 4.1 to get the dozen+ extras needed for SDIO and Ethernet on a standard PCB build. Bringing out ADDED V_5.0 pins (now with USB_Host and SDIO Flash socket too) from that 1062 and routing just might be why B0_13 or other pins are as they are - especially given two sides of the one corner are consumed duplicating the NXP SDRAM path. Linear B0 12,13,14 certainly a good point as it may have been 'handy' - but maybe also be wire routing constrained.
The idea of a double row seemed not good for usage - what about a cross row on the one end? It could fit ~1.6 inches for added pins. @Dogbone06 seemed to suggest that could work - would it be usable to get more pins without more length or major rework of the current edge pins?
Yeah we did that on the very very first dev board (had PSRAM, not SDRAM) as @Dogbone06 didn't want to mess with the exisiting traces.
But I agree it should be placed in it's natural order and not at the end.
Updated Todo:
* Add the missing AD_B1_XX pins
* Top left of the board in the spreadsheet image in this thread, there are many GND pins. I will replace a few of them with 5V pins.
* 4.5 already has USB Host and USB-PD (Power Delivery) on that USB-C port. It will ofc stay for gen5.
* 4.5 also has the SD Card slot, which will also stay for gen5.
* B0_13 in it's natural location instead of the bottom.
Regarding double row, I want democracy to rule when it comes to that.
Let's use the emojis on this post to vote.
EVERYONE FOR DOUBLE ROW:
EVERYONE AGAINST DOUBLE ROW:
* Add the missing AD_B1_XX pins
* Top left of the board in the spreadsheet image in this thread, there are many GND pins. I will replace a few of them with 5V pins.
* 4.5 already has USB Host and USB-PD (Power Delivery) on that USB-C port. It will ofc stay for gen5.
* 4.5 also has the SD Card slot, which will also stay for gen5.
* B0_13 in it's natural location instead of the bottom.
Regarding double row, I want democracy to rule when it comes to that.
Let's use the emojis on this post to vote.
EVERYONE FOR DOUBLE ROW:
EVERYONE AGAINST DOUBLE ROW:
KurtE
Senior Member+
I thought of responding with but it was not in the list
2 2x20 connectors or the like, might be challenging to you both routing and also if you do shields being able to uplug them...
But there are some boards like the Mega family (mega, due, GIGA) that have a 2x20? Actually the GIGA lots more pins that that...
But... Do what is simple for you to do! Again preference is hopefully if you stick with 40 pin connector, that we only need maybe
the first 35 maybe up to 37 or 8 on each side and have all the signals and shield < 100mm in length...
And would be plus if: Arduino pin numbers were shown on right hand pins as well...
Thanks!
but it was not in the list 2 2x20 connectors or the like, might be challenging to you both routing and also if you do shields being able to uplug them...
But there are some boards like the Mega family (mega, due, GIGA) that have a 2x20? Actually the GIGA lots more pins that that...
But... Do what is simple for you to do! Again preference is hopefully if you stick with 40 pin connector, that we only need maybe
the first 35 maybe up to 37 or 8 on each side and have all the signals and shield < 100mm in length...
And would be plus if: Arduino pin numbers were shown on right hand pins as well...
Thanks!
You mean that on the outer "rim/edge" of the board, the actual software pin number would be shown?I thought of responding with
2 2x20 connectors or the like, might be challenging to you both routing and also if you do shields being able to uplug them...
But there are some boards like the Mega family (mega, due, GIGA) that have a 2x20? Actually the GIGA lots more pins that that...
But... Do what is simple for you to do! Again preference is hopefully if you stick with 40 pin connector, that we only need maybe
the first 35 maybe up to 37 or 8 on each side and have all the signals and shield < 100mm in length...
And would be plus if: Arduino pin numbers were shown on right hand pins as well...
Thanks!
For example (looking at the board from above):
B0_00 [HEADER] 10
Last edited:
KurtE
Senior Member+
Short answer - your choice.
Yes - That would be great.
Other option: B0_00/10 - which sort of matches the pins on the left-hand side.
Sort of interesting that pins on Left - you show functional names for all of the AD_B0_xx and AD_B1_xx pins
But on right side, for the B0_xx B1_xx pin, you show the pin names...
Where the: SCL/24/A4 - is pin name AD_B0_12
But I understand there is only so much room. Not sure how much room you have on outer ridge.
Also at least on mine, there was outer rails on both sides, that look like they can be snapped off...
Not sure if that is in your design or part of the manufacturing... But if yours, could potentially
put some of the data out on them?
As for pin numbers for pins not on MicroMod - it would be great to assign them.... I did that on your 4.0 and added the all
into the pin table part of my variant... Would do the same for the next one.
Will keep this in mind!
KurtE
Senior Member+
I am assuming that that it was voted down. I am also assuming that this vote was for double row with different signals.
And not, double rows like the Sparkfun Micromod boards like:
Where they have two connections per signal.
Correct, the board will keep the same headers as it has today. But pins will be updated/replaced and such as per the todo above.