Forum Rule: Always post complete source code & details to reproduce any issue!
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 151 to 168 of 168

Thread: Suggest next Teensy with Cortex M7

  1. #151
    The pin 11 and 13

  2. #152
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,402
    SPI1 pins could be relocated if needed, but pins 11 and 13 belong to SPI0 :P

  3. #153
    Eng:
    yes I meant the first bus spi so the 0, not the 1. it should move the pin 11 and 13 teensy audio, I do not know if it is possible, and even if we could it should make changes in the audio library. I do not know how to do it

    Fra:
    oui je voulais dire le premier bus spi donc le 0, pas le 1. il faudrait donc déplacer les pin 11 et 13 du teensy audio, je ne sais pas si c'est possible, et même si on le pouvais il faudrait faire des modifications dans la libraire audio. Je ne sais pas commen le faire

  4. #154
    Senior Member PaulStoffregen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    17,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Armadafg View Post
    I do not know how to do it
    All of the audio library examples with SD card show how to assign the SPI pins.

    For example, from WavFilePlayer.ino (in Arduino, click File > Examples > Audio > WavFilePlayer)

    Code:
    // Use these with the Teensy Audio Shield
    #define SDCARD_CS_PIN    10
    #define SDCARD_MOSI_PIN  7
    #define SDCARD_SCK_PIN   14
    
    // Use these with the Teensy 3.5 & 3.6 SD card
    //#define SDCARD_CS_PIN    BUILTIN_SDCARD
    //#define SDCARD_MOSI_PIN  11  // not actually used
    //#define SDCARD_SCK_PIN   13  // not actually used
    
    // Use these for the SD+Wiz820 or other adaptors
    //#define SDCARD_CS_PIN    4
    //#define SDCARD_MOSI_PIN  11
    //#define SDCARD_SCK_PIN   13

  5. #155
    Eng:
    I use the teensy internal sd port. My problem is effectively not the spi port of the teensy audio but the pins 11 and 13 which is used for the sound and which prevents me from using the spi0. spi0 used by the ft81x

    Fra:
    j'utilise le port sd interne du teensy. Mon problème n'est effectivement pas le port spi du teensy audio mais les broches 11 et 13 qui son utilisé pour le son et qui m'empêche d'utiliser le spi0. spi0 utilisé par le ft81x

  6. #156
    Senior Member PaulStoffregen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    17,193
    Using pins 7 & 14 rather than 11 & 13 is easy. From the example:

    #define SDCARD_MOSI_PIN 7
    #define SDCARD_SCK_PIN 14

    SPI.setMOSI(SDCARD_MOSI_PIN);
    SPI.setSCK(SDCARD_SCK_PIN);

    Then SPI will not use pins 11 & 13, so you can use pins 11 & 13 for audio.

  7. #157
    eng:
    Sorry I think we did not understand each other. Pins 13 and 11 its use by the teensy audio and at the same time I have to use it for the FT 81x because the FT 81x use the bus SPI0

    fra:
    Désolé je crois que l'on ne s'est pas compris. Les pins 13 et 11 son utiliser par le teensy audio et dans un même temp je dois l'utiliser pour le FT 81x car le FT81x utiliser le bus SPI0

  8. #158
    Senior Member+ Theremingenieur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Colmar, France
    Posts
    1,509
    But who needs an audio shield in a 3d printer?

  9. #159
    Ang:
    my project is not the 3d printer but I need it to finish my project

    Fra :
    mon projet n'est pas l'imprimante 3d mais j'en ai besoin pour finir mon projet

  10. #160
    Senior Member+ Theremingenieur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Colmar, France
    Posts
    1,509
    Ah, I misunderstood. But, finally, what is your project? I can't remember you having given any details besides of using the audio shield and EVE graphics...

    Seen that FrankB managed to run a full Commodore C64 emulation including driving a TFT display on a single Teensy 3.6, I can hardly imagine what you are trying to achieve and running into limits.

  11. #161
    Senior Member PaulStoffregen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    17,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Armadafg View Post
    Pins 13 and 11 its use by the teensy audio and at the same time I have to use it for the FT 81x because the FT 81x use the bus SPI0
    SPI0 does not require pins 11 & 13. Alternate pins are possible, pins 7 & 14.

    Maybe this picture can help?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	pins.png 
Views:	8 
Size:	432.0 KB 
ID:	13821

    If you use pins 7 & 14 for SPI0, then pins 11 & 13 are not used by SPI0.


    Future Cortex-M7 chips will have similar pin assignment choices, where conflicts are solved by assigning certain functions to non-default pins. This is an important concept to understand now for Teensy 3.x and for future Teensy using Cortex-M7.
    Last edited by PaulStoffregen; 05-17-2018 at 11:46 AM.

  12. #162
    eng:
    Thank you Paul I managed to move the pin 13 and 11 of the FT81x to 7 and 14 . I can not test the teensy audio and the FT81x at the same time for now, but it should work. To use the SPI RAM on the bus SPI1 it will have to be easy but if I want for example uses the WiFi library on the bus SPI2 I should modify it (WiFi library) ?

    fra:
    Merci Paul j'ai réussi a déplacer les pin 13 et 11 du FT81x vers les 7 et 14 . Je ne peux pas tester le teensy audio et le FT81x en même temps pour l'instant, mais ça devrait fonctionner. Pour utiliser la SPI RAM sur le bus SPI1 ça devra être facile mais si je veux par exemple utilise la WiFi library sur le bus SPI2 je devrais la modifier ?

  13. #163
    Senior Member+ Theremingenieur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Colmar, France
    Posts
    1,509
    @Armadafg: I think you should open a new thread to get help with your current project. It's ways off topic here.

  14. #164
    eng:
    it's true you're right

    fra:
    c'est vrais vous avez raison

  15. #165
    eng:
    To come back to the subject of teensy 4 I do not think there is a perfect teensy. There is more than one request diffrenent.

    This is why we should make several different size and different prices and this with a clear and precise name. For example, use the following denomination: Teensy XYZ:
    The X would correspond to the generation of Teensy so here 4.
    The Y would correspond to the size: 3 sizes of a teensy 3.2 / 3.1 / lc. 5 = sizes of teensy 3.5 / 3.6 and 7 that for sizes of "Teensy 3.5 / 3.6 Breakout": https://www.tindie.com/products/logl...on-a-standard/.
    And in the end the Z would correspond to the power.

    I know that setting up a whole new range of teensy can be very complex but it can be very intersting


    Fra:
    Pour en revenir au sujet de la teensy 4 je pence pas qu'il y ai une teensy parfaite. Il y a plusier demande diffrenent.

    C'est pour cela qu'il faudrait en faire plusieurs de différente taille et différent prix et cela avec une dénomination claire et précise. Par exemple en utilisent la dénomination suivante : Teensy XYZ :
    Le X correspondrait a la génération de Teensy donc ici 4.
    L’Y correspondrait a la taille :3 tailles d'une teensy 3.2/3.1/lc. 5 = teensy 3.5/3.6 et 7 celui du "Teensy 3.5/3.6 Breakout" : https://www.tindie.com/products/logl...on-a-standard/ .
    Et en fin le Z correspondrait à la puissance.

    Je sais que mettre en place toute une nouvelle gamme de teensy peut etre tres complex mais ca peut etre tres interssant

  16. #166
    Senior Member PaulStoffregen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    17,193
    Every time we talk of future Teensy models, these same subjects are discussed all over again. Soon we'll probably see talk of finer pitch pins, high density I/O connectors (seems Sony is using this with their new entry to the Arduino market... I held it in my hand yesterday at their booth here at Maker Faire).

    I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again now. A large number of Teensy models is not economically viable for PJRC. The reality is Teensy has only a small portion of the Arduino market. Most people use the less powerful boards (or Chinese clones). With SMT electronics manufacturing, if you make too few of any model, the many fixed costs (both NRE & ongoing) greatly drive up prices or make it a money-losing venture. The pie is only so large and if you try to slice it into too many pieces, they end up too small to be viable.

    We currently make 6 models, two 8 bit and four 32 bit. When we go to Cortex M7, this will expand probably to 8 models. Perhaps it may grow to 9 as more powerful Cortex M7 chips become available. Or it may shrink to 7 when/if the old 8 bit products are eventually discontinued (unlikely before late 2019 to 2020).

    The other reason to limit the number of models is software support. I try very hard to give everyone a great user experience while supporting powerful features that almost all the other Arduino compatible makers feel are too difficult or involve too much cost to develop or support. This is only possible if we limit the number of models. More hardware models to support greatly multiplies the difficulty of providing a good user experience.

    It's easy to imagine a huge range of products. It's also easy to fantasize about huge (or unsustainable) funding and far more than 24 hours in every day! But the practical reality is Teensy's product line is constrained by the economic reality of a small company making these boards at modest volume, and by the finite number of hours in every day to do all the work to actually develop and support them well.

    When we introduce Cortex M7 based models, which *will* happen but currently does not have a solid time-frame, there will be at most 2 new models.

  17. #167
    Member dauntless89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Deer Park, WA
    Posts
    42
    Your community support is remarkable and appreciated, and I am definitely looking forward to the new Teensy(s).

    Are you far enough along yet to have an idea whether or not the T3.6 form factor can be retained?

  18. #168
    Senior Member+ defragster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,227
    Indeed there is a parallel thread about alternate variations - and it has this note about two potential directions for PJRC - here is a clipped version from Paul

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulStoffregen View Post
    ... I will risk mentioning I'm leaning towards two possible paths on the form factor. One way would look like 2 different products, mimicking the Teensy 3.2 form factor as closely as possible with the cost as low as we can manage, with the second higher cost board having a "long" form factor (maybe Teensy 3.6 pinout, maybe longer) and provisions built in for all sorts of I/O. ...

    Again, this is all still *very* early. Expect this all to take a very long time. It will feel like vapor! ...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •