Forum Rule: Always post complete source code & details to reproduce any issue!
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 53 of 53

Thread: Teensy 4.0 vs PORTENTA H7

  1. #51
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulStoffregen View Post
    I do believe there's a strong need for this. It's definitely not where Teensy is focused, very much on commercial temperature range, keeping costs low (no big SDRAM chip), and focusing on makers.
    Hello Everyone.

    I just wanted to add my '50 cents' here, looking at the expansion Arduino had in the last decade as an ecosystem but also as a company I think that is the right move to do .
    The addition of a separate commercial/industry product-line is a good thing, as long as stuff developed within the pro segment will flow into Maker/OSS products .It does in
    every other company I think of - so I am pretty sure this wont be any different.

    Secondly - I think that this will shake the perception within big name corporations - there are a lot HR dinosaurs there assuming Arduino = Toy - so the Pro line might be a great
    thing that will change this very biased view...

  2. #52
    Senior Member+ Frank B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Germany NRW
    Posts
    6,163
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulStoffregen View Post
    Seems unlikely for both cores to share a peripheral.
    Depends on what one defines as periphal - You mention the Clocks (don't know if they are official called "periphal" )- i guess the PLLs and PFDs (the whole clock domain) are shared?
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulStoffregen View Post
    The MPU is not shared. Each CPU core has its own MPU. Here's the block diagram from NXP's public "fact sheet".

    Attachment 18978
    Yes I assumed that. Makes more sense, too But this does not mean they can not restrict the access (they can do it for their "own" core, then).


    So far, I really haven't done much on this.
    Yeah, I assumed so It's not the time.

    Getting Teensy 4.1 into production (or fully ready before all the parts arrive) is my top priority right now.
    No betatests?

    I am going to collaborate with Arduino on this. We've already exchanged a few emails. I do believe everyone benefits if we create compatible APIs.
    That would be great. Let's see how that turns out!

    It's definitely not where Teensy is focused, very much on commercial temperature range, keeping costs low (no big SDRAM chip), and focusing on makers.
    It confused me a bit that there are official statements and explanations in a forum that is not industry-related.
    I have no problem with that (on the contrary! - it is interesting and thanks for the insights )
    And re: open source:I think we all know how difficult it was in the past to contribute
    Last edited by Frank B; 02-08-2020 at 12:01 AM.

  3. #53
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulStoffregen View Post
    Portenta H7 does have 2.54mm spaced pins on the outside edge. But only so many can fit, because they are so large.

    Teensy is the same way. We try to put as many of those pins on the outside edge as possible, but it is never enough for everyone. To get more signals without smaller pitch, the PCB would need to become very long.
    I obviously have seen them and that would make it like a Teensy 3.2/4.0. I loved the long 3.5/3.6 Teensy due to the number of workable pins! One way you could improve it is by using two rows of 2.56 mm pins, like the robotdyn mega pro (2560). you marginally increase the size of the board, you can keep it compatible with previous versions (you add rows on the outside). I like it much better than these 0.4 mm microscopic connectors.

Posting Permissions

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