Forum Rule: Always post complete source code & details to reproduce any issue!
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 158

Thread: Bootloader Chip For Teensy 4.0

  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulStoffregen View Post
    Quick update, just to let everyone waiting know I am working on this now that Teensyduino 1.53 is released. It's my top priority. I hope to have chips available for you in a couple weeks.
    @PaulStoffregen Any update ?

  2. #27
    Is there any new information about the Bootloader chip?

  3. #28
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    1

    Cool Also Keen to Help Make Bootloaded Solutions with the Teensy 4.1

    Hey,

    I am new to this thread but have used the Teensy in the past and am not afraid to route a BGA design like this.

    Any news on the bootloader IC?

    Cheers,
    Tekt Head

  4. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Korea
    Posts
    1
    @PaulStoffregen

    Hi,

    I'm very interested in this thread. Especially, the bootloader for DIY Teensy 4.1.
    Do you have any updates?

    Thanks,
    Hyunmin

  5. #30
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    6
    @hmshin if I'm not mistaken both use the same MCU (NXP iMXRT1062) so the bootloader should be the same for 4.0 and 4.1.

    I'm also really into this bootloader as I need to design a way bigger teensy form factor. Hopefully Paul will surprise us soon

  6. #31
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    3
    @PaulStoffregen

    We're using the T4 on one of our commercial projects, and we're moving into a production. We're waiting eagerly for the bootloader chip! I was wondering what the timescale on the chip is? I think a realistic timescale would be greatly appreciated. It's fine if it would take longer, but could you let us know.

    Hat

  7. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Germany, Trossingen
    Posts
    1
    I use the NXP IMXRT1062 in my bachelor thesis. Therefore I would also be very interested in the bootloader chip for easy programming.
    I look forward to positive news on this topic.

    @PaulStoffregen: Thank you for your awesome work.

  8. #33
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    1
    First off, thank you very much for your work Paul, really making a difference. I was just wondering what the time line on this is? I am currently using a teensy 3.6 for my thesis project, and was wondering when the bootloader for the 4.0 would be avaialble? would make a ton of difference for me and my team. Thank you!

  9. #34
    @PaulStoffregen

    Do you have any news on the progress of the boot loader for T4?

    I would also like to specify that everything related to Teensy works wonderfully, good job. It's really fun to develop with these products

    Thank

  10. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4
    Any update on this?

    Or as an alternative, are the bootloader chips on shipped T41s capable of setting up virgin IMXRT chips?

    Any info appreciated

  11. #36
    Senior Member+ defragster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    13,505
    Any Info ... AFAIK:
    > no the shipped T_4.1's are not ready to deal with a factory fresh 1062

    > Work on the bootloader update to deal with that has progressed to and perhaps over a major hurdle with a security HAB issue - Some T_4's have been sent to a user for confirmation to work with needed FUSE settings and function.

    > PJRC is short staffed due to health restrictions and DEV time is in short supply between production and TD 1.54 beta and such ...

  12. #37
    Senior Member PaulStoffregen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    23,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Jollerprutt View Post
    Or as an alternative, are the bootloader chips on shipped T41s capable of setting up virgin IMXRT chips?
    No, they are not. If you desolder the MKL02 chip from a Teensy 4.1 and try to use it with a virgin IMXRT, it definitely will not work.

  13. #38
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    4
    We would like to use the Teensy 4.0 in a compact device for medical purposes, and produce this with some volume.

    The only problem we have is that the current format of the board does not fit well, and we would need to design an own layout with different sockets. It would be really great if you could sell the bootloader chip with some reference design separately, as we would immediately implement this and use it long-term.

  14. #39
    Deleted User
    Guest
    Very, that means VERY, interested in getting boot chips for virgin iMXRT, too.

  15. #40
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by ikue View Post
    The only problem we have is that the current format of the board does not fit well, and we would need to design an own layout with different sockets. It would be really great if you could sell the bootloader chip with some reference design separately, as we would immediately implement this and use it long-term.
    Actually on the same situation, ant to use it in a product but form factor (having to put a socket in the board to plug the Teensy instead of having a single clean PCB) and logicstics make it much more appealing to have your own design using Paul's bootloader.

    I remember reading they hit some problems with the bootloader, that's why we haven't heard anything yet even tho he said in summer it was his first priority after the 1.53 update. On the other hand some clue about the estimated time available (even if it's months away yet) would be nice as that would help most of us with our planification.

  16. #41
    thats right. it'll be good to know if this is still actively being developed so I can plan ahead. If its not then I'll have no choice but to start designing using the 3.6

  17. #42
    Deleted User
    Guest
    MCUXpresso is the way to go.
    With this and the i.MX RT 1064 EVK you get a nice platform and have the complete open field of possibilities with the MCU used in T 4.x.
    Absolutely not Arduino.
    And there is the i.MX RT 1170 as well, once you become a member of the circle.

    The development of the Teensy boot chip seems to be blocked by the strict will to work around Apple quirks on Teensyduino, consuming large amounts of resources.

  18. #43
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
    MCUXpresso is the way to go.
    With this and the i.MX RT 1064 EVK you get a nice platform and have the complete open field of possibilities with the MCU used in T 4.x.
    Absolutely not Arduino.
    And there is the i.MX RT 1170 as well, once you become a member of the circle.

    The development of the Teensy boot chip seems to be blocked by the strict will to work around Apple quirks on Teensyduino, consuming large amounts of resources.
    The problem with this is that we lose access to the awesome Teensy community and on top of that, we don't support Paul in everything he is doing to make Teensy and Arduino a better place.

    I am more than happy to pay the extra costs a teensy bootloader IC brings as I know the money is used to keep PJRC running and while PJRC is running, everyone benefits.

  19. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
    MCUXpresso is the way to go.
    With this and the i.MX RT 1064 EVK you get a nice platform and have the complete open field of possibilities with the MCU used in T 4.x.
    Absolutely not Arduino.
    120 Euro for a huge board that I will never be able to integrate in my products as I do with Teensies.
    And, I normally do not use Arduino, and then only to have a common system with others on this forum.

  20. #45
    Deleted User
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by TGlev View Post
    The problem with this is that we lose access to the awesome Teensy community and on top of that, we don't support Paul in everything he is doing to make Teensy and Arduino a better place.

    I am more than happy to pay the extra costs a teensy bootloader IC brings as I know the money is used to keep PJRC running and while PJRC is running, everyone benefits.
    Yes, I totally agree.The Teensy community is the best part of it all.
    But at the end, when it comes to getting to a roll-out, it is a matter of turning investments (in time and money) into reward early enough before the competition makes it.
    We have now a product running that would have given tenthousands of sales for the boot chip, but it is just not existent, so this one is already lost to the Teensy community.
    A next version is on my workbench for prototyping. But then it will again not be Teensy, because of lack of the boot chip and the ready-made Teensy would not fit (and be difficult to get hands on in the required amounts, set aside the cost).
    And then there is the licensing mine field with code floating in the web, so for a product everything has to be rewritten anyway.
    That is, as long as the boot chip is not there, which for the price would imply the license to use it in a product, Teensy is just some sort of prototyping (or functional mock-up) platform.

    Quote Originally Posted by WMXZ View Post
    120 Euro for a huge board that I will never be able to integrate in my products as I do with Teensies.
    And, I normally do not use Arduino, and then only to have a common system with others on this forum.
    This is an evaluation and development platform, intended to lead to a custom board. The board is not intended to be used in a final product.
    But then there is the question why one would need a boot chip if not making a custom PCB?
    And there comes the check-mate, what is a Teensy custom board good for without boot chip?
    So at the end, wanting a custom board will force the barebones way.

  21. #46
    Senior Member+ Frank B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    7,995
    At the end, neither Arduino, nor any Arduino-Board are made for commercial high volume products.
    And they are not intended to be that ( I think )

    From the software-side it would mean to trust 3rd party hobby-written libs and other code.
    No larger company can risk that.

  22. #47
    Deleted User
    Guest
    Anyway, it would be super nice to have hackability.
    This also contributes to sustainability.
    Be it hobbyist-code, the quality may still be excellent, because a hobbyist usually loves what she or he does, so does it best. Every imported code needs to be evaluated and assessed, anyway, so that is not exactly the point.
    There are several Arduino-hackable products in the market already with a strong user community and continous ongoing development. This is sustainability as IMHO every product has to have.
    If I had legislative authority, I would force every mass product to be user-hackable and sustainable to the maximum extent safety would permit. That means, nobody is forced to modify a product, but everybody has the option to do so, instead of buying new and wasting natures resources.

  23. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    840
    I'm aware of teensy boards or boot loaders in some commercial, low-moderate volume products. Higher volumes, low support costs - so I'd guess that the economics of this are far more attractive than selling single boards to hobbyists.

    I think it's a good model - get people using a board because of an attractive price, good support, user community, etc. Once they are familiar with it, they are likely to use it in product.

    I would like to see teensy library code improve to be more robust. For example, adopting some of the MISRA rules. And avoiding nasty side effects (like turning on interrupts).
    Last edited by jonr; 12-04-2020 at 02:41 PM.

  24. #49
    Still waiting for Paul for the bootloader chip of Teensy 4.0 for sell.

  25. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank B View Post
    At the end, neither Arduino, nor any Arduino-Board are made for commercial high volume products.
    And they are not intended to be that ( I think )

    From the software-side it would mean to trust 3rd party hobby-written libs and other code.
    No larger company can risk that.
    I don't see any valid reason why it would not be used more and more in commercial products, and I'm sure it is the case already.
    As for software side, I would tend to trust more community libs developed and tested by sometimes by thousands of users instead of a company specific code, developed and reviewed by at best a couple ...
    After more than a decade spent in the software + embedded industry, what I commonly see are custom software problems that could have been avoided with unit testing (using environment mocking techniques),
    not so many bugs due to the libraries we use.

Posting Permissions

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