I am doing crazy amount of multichannel audio DSP real time, including real-time analog circuit simulation (nonlinear differential equations).
Last edited:
open-source teensy-compatible - what features do you want?
- Thread starter ptorrone
- Start date
Loading, manipulating and displaying multi layered geographical maps from vectors from sdcard on to a 960x540 (16bit) display, in realtime. This via a T4.1 @ 816Mhz with 2x8MB Ext Ram with 2x Ublox M10 GNSS receiver modules. 1Ghz would be great.
ptorrone
Active member
“teensy-compatible” does not mean “same chip” or “binary-compatible bootloader.” it never has. by that definition, teensy 2.x, 3.x, and 4.x were already wildly different from each other. different cores, different architectures, different toolchains
given that, we are expanding the ecosystem of teensy-compatible boards (much like we did with Feather, and Sparkfun did with the pro mini line) this is good for the market of dev-board customers because they will have more options in making projects & products that have a teensy-compatible pinout.
this board is “like teensy” because:
* it has between v3.2 and v4 performance with M33 that can be clocked at 300MHz (and, hey! we re-added 5V tolerant input pins!)
* it supports the same peripheral-heavy, timing-sensitive use cases - in particular PIO is great for when you need I/O to fit a timing spec
* it fits the same physical and electrical pinout people design around
* it uses arduino, platformio, cmake, etc. just like teensy users already do
* it deliberately avoids lock-in so anyone can build, sell, or extend it
yes, it uses an rp2350 today. tomorrow it may use something else. that is the point. teensy 3.x died because it was tied to one chip family. open designs survive silicon cycles.
calling it “just a 2350 arduino” misses the point in the same way calling a teensy 4 “just a fast arm board” misses why people bought it.
if you want a closed bootloader, single-vendor supply chain, and one person deciding who gets access (nate at sparkfun), teensy already exists, get one at sparkfun, we can't.
if you want an open, extensible, community-driven alternative in the same class, that’s what this is.
those two things are not the same.
ptorrone
Active member
you know the ESP-P4 might be a really good option for you because it has MIPI/DSI display support and support for up to 64MB of PSRAM. much more graphics optimized!
SparkFun
New member
It is true that SparkFun has decided not to transact with Adafruit moving forward due to significant violations of our code of conduct (which is posted here: (https://www.sparkfun.com/support#code-of-conduct). You can see the communication we sent to Adafruit here: (https://www.sparkfun.com/official-response). We do not make this decision lightly and we wish Adafruit the best with future endeavors.
Appreciate the suggestion. Just after having a quick look this and at the CPU datasheet, I see that its a 360Mhz part and without hardware 32 and 64bit floating point support, along with 25% less internal RAM than the Cortex-M7 RT1062 of the T4.1. This, along with form-factor and power draw, would make the ESP-P4 an inferior board, in my opinion, than the Teensy 4.1.
ptorrone
Active member
hello, nameless sparkfun representative. since you’re replying publicly, let’s be specific.
this is about teensy and sparkfun’s role as the exclusive manufacturer and seller of that product.
for anyone still reading:
in july, we told sparkfun they needed to get their house in order. for years, sparkfun's leadership ignored specific behavior from leadership (and employees, now former... they had created and promoted hate sites, photoshopped images, and harassment targeting limor, me, and others at adafruit. this was done on company time, shared, promoted. this was reported to them. it was documented and ignored. that was the big issue i wanted them to get some hr training on, or _something_
months later in 2025, the same individual resurfaced and re-promoted it with what appears to be nate's blessing at the time. we again told sparkfun to deal with this. instead of addressing the behavior, sparkfun’s response was to “ban” adafruit from purchasing teensy by invoking a vague, secret set of rules that neither we nor paul (the creator of teensy) were allowed to see.
this is not a one-off. nate (the founder of sparkfun) has done this before. anyone who has worked with him long enough knows this is how conflict is handled: deflect, escalate, and try to punish rather than deal with the underlying conduct.
we do not respond to bullying by backing down. we never have. that is why we are here.
sparkfun is free to choose who it does business with. adafruit is free to build an open-source, community-accessible replacement when an exclusive supplier weaponizes access. the letter you attached is noted. the context you omitted is now for the 5 people who have read this far to see.
Last edited:
ptorrone
Active member
can you do mipi/dsi on the 1062?
joepasquariello
Well-known member
Thanks. My take-away is that it's open-source hardware with same size and similar pinout to T3.2/T4.0.
Not currently though possible through the programmable FlexIo, that's currently driving the 16bit displays. I didn't mention it above because it isn't the deal breaker that the lack of hardware floating point support is. Don't misunderstand - there are other dealbreakers elsewhere; If the Teensyduino deviated from Win7 support, or mandated IDE 2.x, then I would be gone the following day.
ptorrone
Active member
oh wow, just to be super clear you mean windows 7 as in...
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-7
this is good to know, can you tell me more? you're running win7? actively?
there are no security updates,. why not move to win10 or win11?
what’s keeping you stuck? drivers? software? i get it’s a pain, but at some point what are you going to do?
what breaks if you upgrade?
PaulStoffregen
Well-known member
Windows backwards compatibility is pretty easy. I personally don't use Windows and I'm no fan of Microsoft, but they do deserve credit for providing the very best backwards compatibility of any mainstream operating system. In that regard, Windows is even superior to Linux. I'm pretty sure we're still compatible all the way back to Windows XP SP3 if you use an old enough version of Arduino IDE.
But just getting the files onto an old Windows XP machine can be a chore, as our website (like virtually all others) is https-only and no longer offers TLS version 1.1 or 1.0 which are considered unsecure. Unless you somehow update SSL protocols and root certificates, you can't view any websites on a stock Windows XP machine today. But it still runs and old Arduino IDE runs and Teensyduino installer should still work. I did actually test it about 1 year ago, which is how I know about the chore of just getting the files copied to the machine...
MacOS is pretty much the polar opposite. Apple has made many changes over the last 15 years that broke backwards compatibility. Over the years I've made some pretty unconventional hacks to build an installer that works all the way back to the versions named after big cats. But with the coming Teensyduino 1.60 release, I'm sad to say Apple's discontinuance of notarytool effectively means I have to drop support for MacOS older than Catalina, and we'll probably lose support on MacOS for old Arduino IDE verson 1.8.x. Apparantly Apple has even more changes expected in the next MacOS (after Tahoe) which are very much on my mind this year. I am dedicated to maintaining support for MacOS, but unlike Windows, supporting old versions is quite difficult and today anything older than Catalina is pretty much off the table.
But just getting the files onto an old Windows XP machine can be a chore, as our website (like virtually all others) is https-only and no longer offers TLS version 1.1 or 1.0 which are considered unsecure. Unless you somehow update SSL protocols and root certificates, you can't view any websites on a stock Windows XP machine today. But it still runs and old Arduino IDE runs and Teensyduino installer should still work. I did actually test it about 1 year ago, which is how I know about the chore of just getting the files copied to the machine...
MacOS is pretty much the polar opposite. Apple has made many changes over the last 15 years that broke backwards compatibility. Over the years I've made some pretty unconventional hacks to build an installer that works all the way back to the versions named after big cats. But with the coming Teensyduino 1.60 release, I'm sad to say Apple's discontinuance of notarytool effectively means I have to drop support for MacOS older than Catalina, and we'll probably lose support on MacOS for old Arduino IDE verson 1.8.x. Apparantly Apple has even more changes expected in the next MacOS (after Tahoe) which are very much on my mind this year. I am dedicated to maintaining support for MacOS, but unlike Windows, supporting old versions is quite difficult and today anything older than Catalina is pretty much off the table.
These seem to be popping up everywhere lately: https://www.luckfox.com/EN-Luckfox-Pico-Pro
Cortex A7 is practically the bottom performer of the A series but still beats anything in the M series, plus with NEON it would be several orders of magnitude faster than the paired instructions used on Teensy 4.x.
Yes, but they are Linux based. I need bare metal, without Linux interfering and adding latency, long boot process and host of other stuff I don't need. Teensy is just perfect. If only it was faster. I was hoping for 1GHz NXP part (NXP i.MX RT1170) for a long time. Apparently the other 1GHz microcontroller that surfaced recently is Renesas RA8M2 (1GHz ARM M85) - it is more than twice as fast as Teensy 4 (Coremark 7300 as compared to 3020)
Last edited:
For me, beeing Teensy-compatible means: Teensyduino and tools compatible, 600MHz or faster, at least same amount of RAM/flash, 8 serial, 2 USB, 3 SPI, 3 I2C, SPDIF, 3 CAN, and FlexIO.
I would not advertize my own product "Teensy-compatible" if it could not compete with this.
Maybe, it could be "Teensy form factor compatible"
Just my 2 cents.
I would not advertize my own product "Teensy-compatible" if it could not compete with this.
Maybe, it could be "Teensy form factor compatible"
Just my 2 cents.
I'm not sure if I need a Teensy-compatible device from Adafruit. I use T4.1 for my high end application and I guess, I can still get them from Digikey.
However, for my low-power-low-performance project I still wait for the Feather Adalogger RP2350, Limor has talked about last April (see my entry on Adafruit forum). BTW, if Limor can keep the 8MB PSRAM from the Feather RP2350, maybe by putting the SDCard to the bottom, that would be really a low-power-low-performing alternative for the T4.1 (16MB PSRAM + microSD card)
However, for my low-power-low-performance project I still wait for the Feather Adalogger RP2350, Limor has talked about last April (see my entry on Adafruit forum). BTW, if Limor can keep the 8MB PSRAM from the Feather RP2350, maybe by putting the SDCard to the bottom, that would be really a low-power-low-performing alternative for the T4.1 (16MB PSRAM + microSD card)
There are plenty of boards with lower performance and similar form factor and cheaper. RPico2 and all clones. Lots of Chinese STM32H503/H523/H562 and STM32U585 low power "pill" style boards, these are new, dirt cheap ARM M33 with floating point and 160-250MHz clocks. This mid performance market is really crowded.
You probably know more about the backend sales and customer demand than me (obviously), but I do deal with very large numbers of teensies on my projects/products. (Love all around, I am not getting into drama)
I would argue the reason Teensy is popular has nothing to do with the pinout compatibility - it has more to do with computational horsepower (along side the usability and libraries of course). Without that I feel it might fall short. I think that is where some of the confusion of the initial post comes from.
Well, I would say (add) that two things were important for me: One is the tripple role of the developper of Teensy (hardware, software development and forum support in a single hand) and second the community here that helped to solve a lot of problems. I do not know, how the future will be, as hardware and software developments, if at all still happening, are now in different hands.
Michael Bachman
Member
Onboard dual 12-16 bit DAC. The 4.0 lacks this while the 3.2 had one.
Maybe use a cortex M55 or M85? Faster than the M7
Maybe use a cortex M55 or M85? Faster than the M7
Michael Bachman
Member
CAN is a requirement.