Forum Rule: Always post complete source code & details to reproduce any issue!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 34 of 34

Thread: T2M, an Embeddable Teensy Module (WIP)

  1. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by blackketter View Post
    Do you have a mechanical drawing or some dimensions for a footprint?
    Here are some some board and footprint drawings of the current design (units are mm):

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	board_dims.jpg 
Views:	1 
Size:	103.4 KB 
ID:	18892Click image for larger version. 

Name:	footprint_dims.jpg 
Views:	1 
Size:	66.3 KB 
ID:	18893

    Quote Originally Posted by blackketter View Post
    Also, what's the timeframe for a beta?
    Timeframe for a beta is probably 6-8 weeks. The current revision is going to start being assembled in about one week, and should be done in a few more. Then it has to be shipped to me and finally I get to test it out.

    Also, you might notice that the castellations are a bit larger than before. This is because the PCB fab house has a minimum size of 0.6 mm for castellated holes. Fortunately, that still works for this design, it just needed some tweaking.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	T2M_4_0_Top.jpg 
Views:	1 
Size:	191.3 KB 
ID:	18894

    I'm keeping the suggested footprint the same as before so it's still possible to route between the pads using reasonable trace/space width (6/6 mil) with a little room to spare (there's about 20 mil between pads).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	spacing.jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	80.9 KB 
ID:	18895

    By the way, the specs on the T2M board itself are: 0.8 mm thick, 4/4 spacing, 0.2 mm drills.

  2. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward View Post
    This is great!
    I've often thought about this sort of thing as much as I love the teensy's, I really don't care for 0.1" header as I'm almost always dropping them on a PCB. Personally I'd want a bootloader and a USB because most of my work requires a USB for comms, but you can leave these off the module. Anyone who can use this module should be happy enough to add the bootloader/USB themselves, and actually I also like having the choice of connector to suit the application. I'm also 100% on board (yes, pun intended) with castellations, as previously said because you can reflow them or use an Iron. You also get the bonus of easily visually inspecting the solder to check it's good, which those of us using hacked toaster ovens for reflow (or is that just me?) value.
    Talk to us about beta!
    Thanks! I'm inclined to agree with you, except that I've really come around to the option of having the bootloader on-board. Obviously this variant won't actually be available for a while, until the PJRC bootloader is released. But in the meantime, the bootloader-less variant will be available. I really do hope the LPC-Link2 works out. I was looking at Segger J-Links the other day but I haven't picked one up.

    These are gonna be difficult for some to hand-solder due to the small size, but certainly not impossible (1 mm pitch).

    I use a toaster reflow oven too, with the Controleo2 kit. I've been meaning to grab their upgrade to a full color display, but I haven't gotten around to it. It works very well!

  3. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by wcalvert View Post
    This looks really great, I will be keeping tabs on development. It seems like everything hinges on bootloader support to make it viable for production use.
    Thanks! I hope it ends up being viable for production use with or without the PJRC bootloader! If the LPC-Link2 works out, then we're talking about a $20 programmer and a <$50 programming fixture.

  4. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by lastshaman View Post
    Hi Loglow,

    what a fantastic idea!
    I was about to write a post asking the community for suggestions about the post-development phase, the one in which, after using the T4 for speeding up development, the time comes of putting the MiMXRT1062 on the final PCB.
    In most cases, as in mine, for example, after the chip is put on the production-ready board, there is no need to flash the code using the Arduino IDE (or PlatformIO or whatever) anymore.
    Is your design open-hardware or do you plan to sell them?
    I'm certainly interested in the schematics, PCB layout and BOM. How many layers does your layout have?
    In case you need a beta tester, I could even have a couple of your boards produced and provide feedback.
    Let me know.
    Yeah, I had the same thinking. Using the Teensy is great for development, and even for small runs of things, but it's not ideal to integrate into a product, due to space, headers, mounting, etc. And the BGA fanout makes dropping an RT1062 much more difficult than integrating an MK20 (Teensy 3.2) onto a PCB... needless to say, I'm not usually needing or wanting to pay for 4/4 tolerance with 0.2 mm vias on my end-use PCBs.

    This design will be open hardware and I plan to sell them! I'm not sure about the license, but it'll be something permissive with attribution.

    This is a 2-layer board, and the first time I've ever done BGA routing.

    I'd love to have you beta test. Send me a PM if you'd like to discuss the possibility of manufacturing some on your end.

  5. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by loglow View Post
    If the LPC-Link2 works out, then we're talking about a $20 programmer and a <$50 programming fixture.
    I meant to ask earlier, have you looked at the Segger J-Link debug probes? They are quite popular and have inexpensive models and claim to support the MIMXRT1062 here https://www.segger.com/downloads/supported-devices.php I'm particularly interested as they have solid support in PlatformIO.

  6. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by joey120373 View Post
    I think this is a great idea and long overdue, I would buy them. If this ends up turning into a real board, I would think a teensy 3.2, 3.5/6 and an LC board would be a great idea also. A small, thin .8mm castellated teensy 3.2 / LC would be super handy for all kinds of things. Fist thing that comes to mind is thin small form factor LCD TFT backpack boards.
    I agree, and I plan to make some (of the things you mentioned) if this project works out well. My previous take on that was this: https://forum.pjrc.com/threads/52751 but the form-factor was never really satisfying for me, it just wasn't small enough. At that time I deliberately made it so I could solder it myself, but now I'm much more comfortable with contract assembly and using minuscule components.

    I'm starting with the Teensy 4.0 because a) it's so powerful, b) it's the latest and greatest Teensy, c) it has the difficulty of using a BGA-only chip, and d) it's nice and cheap! I might work backwards to the 3.2 next, but we'll see.

  7. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by blackketter View Post
    I meant to ask earlier, have you looked at the Segger J-Link debug probes? They are quite popular and have inexpensive models and claim to support the MIMXRT1062 here https://www.segger.com/downloads/supported-devices.php I'm particularly interested as they have solid support in PlatformIO.
    Yeah, honestly they look great, but I was turned off by the fact that J-Flash software requires a J-Link PLUS at minimum, which is $600. I might pick up an EDU model to play with, but I'd be tempted to use it unethically and I'm not wild about that. The BASE is $200, still an order of magnitude more than the LPC-Link2.

  8. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by loglow View Post
    Yeah, honestly they look great, but I was turned off by the fact that J-Flash software requires a J-Link PLUS at minimum, which is $600. I might pick up an EDU model to play with, but I'd be tempted to use it unethically and I'm not wild about that. The BASE is $200, still an order of magnitude more than the LPC-Link2.
    Gotcha. Poking around here https://www.nxp.com/design/microcont...-link2:OM13054 I see that the LPC-Link2 can load a Segger J-Link firmware. Might be the best of both worlds!

  9. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by blackketter View Post
    Gotcha. Poking around here https://www.nxp.com/design/microcont...-link2:OM13054 I see that the LPC-Link2 can load a Segger J-Link firmware. Might be the best of both worlds!
    That's true! I think that gives it capabilities on par with the J-Link EDU/BASE, if I remember correctly what I read about it a few weeks ago (which I probably don't).

Posting Permissions

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