Enough.
You need to put that back in the deck and consider said people reading this when they are old enough.
open-source teensy-compatible - what features do you want?
- Thread starter ptorrone
- Start date
- Status
You need to put that back in the deck and consider said people reading this when they are old enough.
This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I mentioned "acting like a victim" earlier.
When this thread began I had no idea who you were, nor Limor. Adafruit to me is just a business like any other, I don't care to know who runs it. But you've stepped forward and thrown accusations around, proposed marketing a new board under false pretenses (it's not Teensy compatible if it can't run Teensy software), and constantly claimed anyone not on your side is part of some long-running harassment conspiracy.
Every reaction in this thread is a reaction to your behaviour. This isn't people being misogynistic towards your wife, it's people calling you out for your own actions.
This is an admission that you find it difficult to communicate effectively; with that in mind, plus the fact that you're also trying to raise a family while all of this is happening, I would strongly suggest your organization hire somebody else specifically to handle public communications.
By trying to do it yourself you are currently burning bridges left, right and center.
Hi,rp2350 dual-core coremark results: first numbers are in
hey folks, just got back from our two-month pediatrician visit and, in between bottles and naps, we had claude code update the coremark repo to support the rp2350 running dual-core, multi-threaded.
results look solid.
for reference, a teensy 4.0 lands around ~2300 coremark. the rp2350, overclocked to 276 mhz, comes in at ~1400. not bad at all, especially given where this chip sits in the ecosystem and what it’s optimized for.
the repo is up, the changes are straightforward, and the benchmarks are now in the readme. if you want to dig in, clone it, tweak clocks, or argue about flags, have at it.
GitHub - ladyada/CoreMark at dual-core-progress
Benchmark CPU Performance on Arduino Compatible Boards - GitHub - ladyada/CoreMark at dual-core-progressgithub.com
coremark isn’t everything, but it’s a useful yardstick, and this puts the rp2350 firmly on the ... board!
(no idea, what the Baby has to do with all of this....)
Thanks for sharing the benchmark! In my opinion, the numbers without overclocking are most interesting. On the Github, we can find them though and this is given as 600 for Dualcore Pico2 @ 150MHz vs. 2314 for Teensy 4.0, so a bit less than Factor 4.
Do you also plan to include the test for ESP32 S3 in Dualcore mode in the table?
https://github.com/ochrin/coremark say, they achieved 999 with 2 cores of ESP32 without overclocking @240MHz -O3. (Seems to suggest, that there will be really a lot of competition for this new board.)
Besides Teensy4.1 and 3.x I also own and use DaisySeed, ESP32, Pico1/Pico2W and Parallax P2 with 8 cores. (Some from Adafruit) From work with P2 my experience is, that the benefit of multiple cores is seldom additional number crunching power, because it is often difficult to split up tasks evenly. (The benefit is more, that it is simpler for the programmer to dedicate a core to a task.)
https://ckarduino.blog/2024/11/28/raspberry-pi-pico-2-leistungsstarker-mikrocontroller-im-test/ say, that single core coremark for Pico2 is 340. That indicates factor 1/6.8 to Teensy 4.1.
Do you plan to implement the _thread module into CircuitPython? It is still said to be highly experimental today. Or is there another way to use the 2nd core with CircuitPython? Many libraries are marked to be not re-entrant at the moment. (In Arduino I know, that you can use begin1().)
You have fixed the price for the new board to 9.95$. I appreciate, that you thrive to offer low cost boards. May I ask, if this can be made in USA for that price?
PaulStoffregen
Well-known member
There's another conversation about all this on the EEVBlog site.
Apparently this thread started a couple days ago, but I learned of it now. Link here to remind myself to go read it all this weekend. At first glance, interesting to see impressions of engineers who really don't know or care about Teensy.
Apparently this thread started a couple days ago, but I learned of it now. Link here to remind myself to go read it all this weekend. At first glance, interesting to see impressions of engineers who really don't know or care about Teensy.
ptorrone
Active member
mark,
paul decides which discussions are “allowed”. he has made his position clear. i am operating within it. this thread exists because a huge change in teensy’s distribution and it directly affects users and developers here. that makes it on-topic. disagreeing with the discussion does not make it “abusive,” and repeating that does not change anything.
i am not advertising, i am explaining decisions, correcting factual claims, and responding to direct questions. i can give folks here the answers to the questions they had. if you find that uncomfortable, stop reading.
you are free to enjoy teensy, adafruit, both, or neither. you are entitled your opinion, i read it many times, i appreciate you telling your teensy story, but you are not entitled to police tone, motives, or venue unless paul has deputized you?
theboot900
Well-known member
There's definitely a bit of misinformation in that thread.
You can most definitely sell your commercial product with a teensy embedded inside
The only thing not open source is the bootloader IC. And that's purely to stop the Chinese copies.
The core is all accessible, editable etc. Teensyduino is open source.
Teensy isn't just a board. It's the whole ecosystem and support around it. You can spin your own boards, make your own commercial pcbs and buy the boot loader ic for $6.50.
Alternatively use the nxp development environment *shivers*. Expect a lot more time to get a product going though
kd5rxt-mark
Well-known member
Well, I really hoped that it would not escape you, but, you missed the point.
...
...
Correct & no disagreement (that it possibly affects users and developers).
...
...
Again, correct, but here's where your understanding falls rather short. Nobody here asked any questions. You started this thread in response to an action that you vehemently disagreed with. You're not answering anything . . . you're venting in frustration . . . but in the wrong place. What you are doing is wasting our time & bandwidth to answer questions that nobody actually asked.
It is the "Adafruit" end of the distribution chain that has been affected. Will this affect end-users of the Teensy & how much ?? - some yes, some maybe, most not at all.
I simply asked that you carry on this discussion to your heart's content, but do so on Adafruit's forum. That's where any users, affected or otherwise, should go to find the answers that you're so desperate to give. Simple as that (I'll even put it in BOLD so that you catch it this time). This is absolutely not a request rooted in the fact that anything is uncomfortable. I tried to make that very clear (read it again !!). I'm perfectly comfortable with any undesirable outcomes from what has transpired, so don't be assigning emotions or reasons for reactions to me using your view of the world. You don't have that ability, nor do you get that privilege . . . that's strictly a privilege of mine & mine alone. P.S. I did precisely this throughout this post, so that you can see how doing so can be a miserable failure (look again at the italicized phrases).
No one is policing anything & no one has deputized me to do or say anything. Like you & anyone else here, I have provided my observations & opinions, but I have done so on my own initiative, in a way that I had hoped would make you realize that you're really making yourself & your company look far worse than necessary. But, in your defense, you don't want to hear that. You didn't ask for my recommendations, so you are completely entitled to take them with as much or as little salt as you wish. That is entirely your prerogative. Absolutely no argument.
Take your beef to a more appropriate grill, where you can still cook & stir & season as you wish, and this grill can get back to cooking the fish that it was intended to cook.
Mark J Culross
KD5RXT
Last edited:
Yes, several of us sell products with Teensy boards inside. So, yeah, it's possible to build commercial stuff with Teensy and actually a great thing for PJRC (and SparkFun now) because they then sell more products. Who buys more Teensys? A hobbyist or someone who is selling thousands of an item? So, I think there is a good synergy between commercial use and something like a teensy board. Hobbyists can buy one, commercial vendors can buy hundreds/thousands and everyone benefits from the common interface and open source code.
ptorrone
Active member
the “what does the baby have to do with this” comment is unnecessary. mentioning real life context is not an appeal for sympathy, it’s transparency about how and when work gets done. you can ignore it if you want, but taking a swipe at it adds nothing technical and shows you are coming to this with your mind already made up. anyhoo -
all raw numbers, clock rates, flags, and configs are already in the repo. nothing is being hidden or selectively presented. coremark comparisons across architectures are inherently imperfect, which is why the data is published rather than summarized into a single marketing number. if you want esp32-s3, p2, or anything else added, patches are welcome. this is how open benchmarking works. contributions welcome.
as expected, multi-core and overclocking will give a linear speedup. a factor of 4 makes sense since is 150 mhz x 4 = 600 mhz and the points/mhz is fairly stable for the M33 & M7 on this test. while overclocking to 300mhz is a bit flaky sometimes - we do 240mhz all the time for DVI/HDMI output and its solid. esp32 will have different performance because of non-blocking wifi radio management but it has BLE and WiFi which is sweet.
for circuitpython we dedicate a core for the USB Host or DVI output or audio processing (so that the main core can be used for device USB and UI) - we have asyncio support rather than thread, since that is python standard and we aim to match cpython. since circuitpython repo syncs up with upstream micropython (and contributes fixes) _thread can be turned on.
while we have not 'fixed' the price to $9.95 - we don't see why the price wouldn't be around there, we have our own manufacturing line in NYC and this isn't a particularly complex design, with a 4 layer board and double-sided but no BGA or fine-pitch parts.
any way, pile-on theater, you can see videos of our line, and this is what it will look like when the first board comes out.
I call myself a hobbyist (even though I have EE degree) and bought plenty of Teensy 4.x and going to buy way more !
@ptorrone - initially I wasn't understanding what this is all about, but after what you have said and done it become clear that there is some thing going between you and Sparkfun. And you know what.... it is your drama. Between you and Sparkfun. This forum is for Teensy products, Teensy-based projects, Teensy libraries. It is not about you or your drama with Sparkfun.
If you want to buy Teensy - you can buy from other places. Sparkfun doesn't want to sell them to you - accept that. Just accept. It is a pitty that you can't co-operate, but there is no other way than just accepting the fact.
There is no point in posting your family images on this forum. Sorry to say, but this is forum for engineers and hobbyists using Teensy, we do have children, but no-one posting images of them.
This is Teensy forum. Your "Freensy" is NOT "Teensy" it is just another RP2350 board nothing else. You can buy RP2350 boards from Waveshare for half the price.
I wish you to enjoy your family time and your new baby. Get some rest and distance.
But let us enjoy our Teensies on this forum
Who wants more Teensies??? I certainly do - part of my "collection"
below
Last edited:
At this point, I would recommend both sides to just quit engaging. Go out and enjoy the coming weekend. Touch grass. Spend time with your family. Work on new cool projects (with a teensy!) Arguing the same point over and over is not changing anyone's mind. I think the positions have been very thoroughly articulated at this point. So, I second Tomas' point but reflect it back on us as well. Let's not push Phil anymore or pile on him. The situation is not changing at this point. AF can't buy from SparkFun. AF is going to make new boards. The facts won't change and beating each other up isn't helping anyone.
ptorrone
Active member
thank you @CollinK that is fair and thoughtful, and i appreciate it. for parents with a newborn, there is a lot of overnight downtime between things. it fits my schedule well. i genuinely enjoyed the technical discussions, the benchmarks, and hearing what people want in current and future teensy and teensy-like hardware.
PaulStoffregen
Well-known member
Your message which began this thread sure looks like an advertisement for an upcoming product.
ptorrone
Active member
it's not if that helps paul, and not my intention either. here is a way to prove it, when there is a shipping product, if that even happens, i will not be posting about it here, if i do - totally agree that you should remove the posts and/or me.
Trying to understand this - the third party would want a reseller discount so they can make a profit, and then Adafruit would also want a reseller discount so they can make a profit. I struggle to see how Adafruit would then be able to remain competitive with Sparkfun pricing and still make a profit?
synfinatic
Active member
Not sure why I'm posting... I've bought things from every company involved and generally have had nothing but positive experiences with all of them. My first PCB design used a Teensy 2.0. Does feel a bit like a kid wondering why mommy and daddy are fighting.
That said... it's hard to not notice you came to to the PJRC forum to have this conversation instead of your own forum. Had you started a thread on your own forums and linked to it while announcing EOS for Teensy products at Adafruit, I think you would of gotten a much more positive response over there... afterall, more choices benefits us all- especially fully open source options. Instead, you've engaged in commentary from the very start that really isn't related to the stated goal- collecting features for a "Teensy compatible board" here on the PJRC forum and that's frankly not a good look.
I honestly don't know what happened behind the scenes. Clearly some people are upset at other people. I don't know who is to "blame". Wouldn't shock me that everyone involved has something they regret. If you're genuinely interested in moving forward, then I suggest keeping it strictly on the stated technical goals of this thread. Because I do clearly see how different people are handling this situation and how some have forgotten the first rule exiting of holes: stop digging.
FWIW, my personal take is that to be "Teensy compatible" is a lot more than same form factor and pin namings... I don't know how you get there from here, but I wish you luck.
That said... it's hard to not notice you came to to the PJRC forum to have this conversation instead of your own forum. Had you started a thread on your own forums and linked to it while announcing EOS for Teensy products at Adafruit, I think you would of gotten a much more positive response over there... afterall, more choices benefits us all- especially fully open source options. Instead, you've engaged in commentary from the very start that really isn't related to the stated goal- collecting features for a "Teensy compatible board" here on the PJRC forum and that's frankly not a good look.
I honestly don't know what happened behind the scenes. Clearly some people are upset at other people. I don't know who is to "blame". Wouldn't shock me that everyone involved has something they regret. If you're genuinely interested in moving forward, then I suggest keeping it strictly on the stated technical goals of this thread. Because I do clearly see how different people are handling this situation and how some have forgotten the first rule exiting of holes: stop digging.
FWIW, my personal take is that to be "Teensy compatible" is a lot more than same form factor and pin namings... I don't know how you get there from here, but I wish you luck.
Mcu32
Well-known member
Just for fun, Coremark Results for ESP32-C3 (160 MHZ, RISCV with FreeRTOS in background):
Flags:
-O3 -march=rv32imc -mabi=ilp32
-fno-exceptions -freorder-blocks
-fschedule-insns -fschedule-insns2
-fjump-tables -ftree-switch-conversion
https://github.com/FrankBoesing/CoreMark (ported to Platformio)
Code:
2K performance run parameters for coremark.
CoreMark Size : 666
Total ticks : 14644
Total time (secs): 14.64
Iterations/Sec : 409.72
Iterations : 6000
Compiler version : GCC14.2.0
Compiler flags : (flags unknown)
Memory location : STACK
seedcrc : 0xE9F5
[0]crclist : 0xE714
[0]crcmatrix : 0x1FD7
[0]crcstate : 0x8E3A
[0]crcfinal : 0xA14C
Correct operation validated. See README.md for run and reporting rules.
CoreMark 1.0 : 409.72 / GCC14.2.0 (flags unknown) / STACKFlags:
-O3 -march=rv32imc -mabi=ilp32
-fno-exceptions -freorder-blocks
-fschedule-insns -fschedule-insns2
-fjump-tables -ftree-switch-conversion
https://github.com/FrankBoesing/CoreMark (ported to Platformio)
Last edited:
It sounds like Sparkfun wants to keep Teensy retail margin to themselves & not allow Adafruit to distribute Teensy profitably at the retail price - basically not selling them to their competitor at wholesale pricing.
I think the reason this ruffles some feathers is that it feels anti competitive, since it wasn’t like this was a Sparkfun original design to begin with.
I don’t think an RP2350 is a compelling sell vs a Teensy because RP just doesn’t have the analog capability.
But at the same time, without knowing the details, I would hesitate to try and productionize a new design based on Teensy without knowing more about the supply situation, or having some kind of product lifecycle documentation or commitment from Sparkfun.
Paul has always been open and transparent about Teensy supply, and that kind of communication engenders trust even if it’s not a guarantee that parts will be available in the future.
I think the reason this ruffles some feathers is that it feels anti competitive, since it wasn’t like this was a Sparkfun original design to begin with.
I don’t think an RP2350 is a compelling sell vs a Teensy because RP just doesn’t have the analog capability.
But at the same time, without knowing the details, I would hesitate to try and productionize a new design based on Teensy without knowing more about the supply situation, or having some kind of product lifecycle documentation or commitment from Sparkfun.
Paul has always been open and transparent about Teensy supply, and that kind of communication engenders trust even if it’s not a guarantee that parts will be available in the future.
Mcu32
Well-known member
Yes, that could be a problem. And no one knows how long Sparkfun will continue to produce Teensy. I fear that if difficulties arise—such as renewed delivery problems with certain parts (which don't even have to affect the CPU)—it will disappear from the market faster than you can say “oops.” That would be understandable, because they want need to make money with it and not play the good Samaritan. I have experienced firsthand how disastrous it can be to rely on a single other company without having a backup.
I'm glad I only do it as a hobby.
As usual: NEVER believe that any company will do something good for you. They only do so as long as they can earn enough money from it. That is logical and in the nature of things.
I hope, Paul has a backup.
I'm glad I only do it as a hobby.
As usual: NEVER believe that any company will do something good for you. They only do so as long as they can earn enough money from it. That is logical and in the nature of things.
I hope, Paul has a backup.
Last edited:
Adafruit were perfectly happy to sell Teensy with the closed-source bootloader to this point. I don't understand why they don't switch to buying the bootloader chip from Paul and make their own clones to undercut Sparkfun? It would be a quicker, simpler and more pragmatic solution I think.
My assumption is that Sparkfun purchased exclusive licensing rights to produce and sell Teensy boards, and Paul would be violating the royalty contract he signed by doing what you suggest.
Honestly though if you’re going through the trouble of reverse engineering and manufacturing a new Teensy board, it would not be that much trouble to design an open source bootloader, especially now that AI has made it a lot easier to parse dense documentation and do reasonable code gen.
But even in that situation, it’s hard to recommend such an old part with questionable supply if you’re doing a ground up project.
For this hypothetical “Freensy” I’d be looking at STM32N6 or another cortex M55 helium micro, something that hobbyists realistically have no access to without a great breakout board, and then building a new Arduino core on top of it, and maybe even something that sits inside a light RTOS or on top of a bootloader that handles DFU and secure boot.
Basically the same thing Teensy did, but with a newer high spec microcontroller. But building a core is a lot of work, even with AI, and it’s not clear that you’d really recoup that investment in today’s market. That’s why Arduino for example shifted into value-add services before being bought by Qualcomm. Selling dev boards isn’t sustainable.
When someone purchases one bootloader chip don't they get a license to make one Teensy board commercially using their own layout?
Last edited:
PaulStoffregen
Well-known member
Yes. It's not anything as formal as a written license agreement, but yes that is indeed the practical reality of the bootloader chip.
- Status