RT1052 compatibility with RT1062.

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LuisHS

Well-known member
Hello
I'm doing software development with Teensy 4, to later make my own boards for the final product. The problem is that there is currently no RT1062 in stock from any vendor, and there are not likely to be until 2024.

Does anyone know if I could use the RT1052 to run programs made for the Teensy 4, or compile RT1062 sources for the RT1052?
 
RT1052 will not work.

First working T_4.0 ran on a 1052, but all support was dropped when the 1062 released in production quantities during development.

The PJRC bootloader will not support the 1052, and the Teensy Sources were developed for the 1062 and any provisions for 1052 support stopped after the first proof of concept alpha test board was made and the design was changed for the improved 1062.
 
We have a small number of leftover IMXR1062 chips in 12mm size (the ones used for Teensy 4.1). If 10 or less would help you get started, email me directly.
 
Thanks for the responses, and for the offer Paul.
Would it be possible to use the RT1064 as a replacement for the RT1062? I guess it will be more compatible than the RT1052.

I already read this thread in which someone raises that:
https://forum.pjrc.com/threads/66720-Porting-to-IMX-RT-1064?highlight=rt1064

And I understand that the only problem is the address of the internal flash in the RT1064 with respect to the external flash that the Teensy 4 uses. That is if the Teensy bootloader is used, but my intention is to develop with Teensy 4 and the project finished loading it on my own board with the RT1064 using SEGGER's Jlink programmer or a software bootloader like uTasker.

In my case, could the RT1064 work simply by changing the load address of the program in the flash, in the linker script file?
 
Last edited:
LuisHS said:
Thanks for the responses, and for the offer Paul.
Would it be possible to use the RT1064 as a replacement for the RT1062? I guess it will be more compatible than the RT1052.

I already read this thread in which someone raises that:
https://forum.pjrc.com/threads/66720-Porting-to-IMX-RT-1064?highlight=rt1064

And I understand that the only problem is the address of the internal flash in the RT1064 with respect to the external flash that the Teensy 4 uses. That is if the Teensy bootloader is used, but my intention is to develop with Teensy 4 and the project finished loading it on my own board with the RT1064 using SEGGER's Jlink programmer or a software bootloader like uTasker.

In my case, could the RT1064 work simply by changing the load address of the program in the flash, in the linker script file?
Click to expand...

That's pretty far outside the scope of PJRC and I doubt that anyone could help here.

However, I did see that this version of the IMXRT1062 is available (11 in stock, ~1,400 expected in September):
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/NXP-Semiconductors/MIMXRT1062CVL5B?qs=BJlw7L4Cy78DHHONBZl9zw==

It's the Teensy 4.0 processor (smaller pitch than 4.1) with the extended temperature range. Much closer to the Teensy 4.x than the other options, so it would be more likely to work out of the box.
 
brtaylor said:
That's pretty far outside the scope of PJRC and I doubt that anyone could help here.

However, I did see that this version of the IMXRT1062 is available (11 in stock, ~1,400 expected in September):
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/NXP-Semiconductors/MIMXRT1062CVL5B?qs=BJlw7L4Cy78DHHONBZl9zw==

It's the Teensy 4.0 processor (smaller pitch than 4.1) with the extended temperature range. Much closer to the Teensy 4.x than the other options, so it would be more likely to work out of the box.
Click to expand...


Those are the 0.65mm pitch version, it would complicate and make the PCB and assembly much more expensive. In BGA I only work with the smallest pitch 0.8mm.

If you look at Mouser stocks, you will see 32bit processors with lots of them in stock, they are the ones nobody wants because the pitch is extremely small (0.4 to 0.65mm), very complicated and expensive to handle (expensive PCB cost because of the vias and tracks so small that you have to use, complicated to assemble with precision to avoid shorts or welding failures).

There is no forecast of the RT1062 (pitch 0.8mm) in quantity, until 2024. My only option, with stock for October of this year, is the RT1052, or the RT1064 of which I have enough units, trying to modify the compilation so that it can work with RT1052 or RT1064.

I'll try the RT1064 by changing the flash boot address in the linker script, and if it doesn't work I'll abandon the project until the RT1062 is back in stock.
 
I felt this way about 0.65mm pitch back in 2018 (when most of the Teensy 4.0 design work was done), when NXP was not yet offering the IMXRT parts in 0.8mm pitch.

As you can see from Teensy 4.0, if you only need to escape about 50-60% of the signals, it is possible using only "normal" PCB specs on a 6 layer design, where 2 of the layers are ground and power planes. I put some info about the PCB design on the T4 bootloader chip page. The main trick is placing most of the vias on alternate rows which leaves routing channels on 3 other layers.

But yeah, 0.8mm pitch really is the sweet spot for today's mainstream PCB spec. If you need to escape over 60% of the signals at 0.65mm pitch, then you would need a more advanced PCB process to traces can route between adjacent vias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top