Nominal Animal
Well-known member
Hey Paul and Robin and others involved in Teensy and Teensy development!
I'm asking if you would prefer the schematics and/or board files of Teensy 4.x derivatives, those relying on an MKL02 from PJRC on each, to not be made public.
I like this community, and regardless of what I can do legally, I do not want to do anything that harms PJRC or this community; and as my background is in software, I do not completely understand the various implications if the schematic and board files of "my" variant were in the open. In particular, I do not want to help anyone make poor fake clones.
I'm considering the feasibility of designing a variant of Teensy 4.0 that would be optimally suited for controlling small displays, especially those with a local display controller chip, using a parallel DMA'd bus, for hobbyists like myself to manufacture and build themselves.
Mostly, that involves exposing as wide FlexIO with DMA capability as possible, at the expense of exposing all the other functionality the RT1062 provides. So, just a different set of pins exposed on the Teensy 4, really. This is not a commercial project: this is purely a hobby project for me, to build new skills, and solve a problem the way that satisfies myself. I definitely do not want to make it commercial even at the smallest scales, and as such, would prefer to keep my schematics and board files open, so I could easily ask for comments and suggestions, and let anyone else interested build or derive their own copies, as long as they too get their preprogrammed MKL02 chips from PJRC. I've never designed or even soldered BGA before, and any help I could get here or at EEVBlog forums would probably be the difference between success and failure... Even if I complete the design at some point, there is (historically) only a 50% chance that I end up building and testing the design! I'm an uncle bumbleduck.
However, if publicly accessible schematics and board files are not optimal wrt. PJRC and/or the Teensy community, for whatever reason, I'll pick a different approach: the main reason I consider Teensy 4.x perfect for this use case is Teensyduino, and undermining that would be extremely counterproductive for myself.
Note: I haven't even made the tool to pick the BGA pads yet, so this is only a preliminary question, one that I really haven't seen discussed yet when custom Teensy variants has been discussed.
Optimally, I'd love to see this preference stated as say footnote or similar on the MKL02 store page.
I'm asking if you would prefer the schematics and/or board files of Teensy 4.x derivatives, those relying on an MKL02 from PJRC on each, to not be made public.
I like this community, and regardless of what I can do legally, I do not want to do anything that harms PJRC or this community; and as my background is in software, I do not completely understand the various implications if the schematic and board files of "my" variant were in the open. In particular, I do not want to help anyone make poor fake clones.
I'm considering the feasibility of designing a variant of Teensy 4.0 that would be optimally suited for controlling small displays, especially those with a local display controller chip, using a parallel DMA'd bus, for hobbyists like myself to manufacture and build themselves.
Mostly, that involves exposing as wide FlexIO with DMA capability as possible, at the expense of exposing all the other functionality the RT1062 provides. So, just a different set of pins exposed on the Teensy 4, really. This is not a commercial project: this is purely a hobby project for me, to build new skills, and solve a problem the way that satisfies myself. I definitely do not want to make it commercial even at the smallest scales, and as such, would prefer to keep my schematics and board files open, so I could easily ask for comments and suggestions, and let anyone else interested build or derive their own copies, as long as they too get their preprogrammed MKL02 chips from PJRC. I've never designed or even soldered BGA before, and any help I could get here or at EEVBlog forums would probably be the difference between success and failure... Even if I complete the design at some point, there is (historically) only a 50% chance that I end up building and testing the design! I'm an uncle bumbleduck.
However, if publicly accessible schematics and board files are not optimal wrt. PJRC and/or the Teensy community, for whatever reason, I'll pick a different approach: the main reason I consider Teensy 4.x perfect for this use case is Teensyduino, and undermining that would be extremely counterproductive for myself.
Note: I haven't even made the tool to pick the BGA pads yet, so this is only a preliminary question, one that I really haven't seen discussed yet when custom Teensy variants has been discussed.
Optimally, I'd love to see this preference stated as say footnote or similar on the MKL02 store page.