Re:SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation
by jacquesm on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @11:06AM
(#46617724)
If you replace the Teensy 4.x it would have to be something very close to the same pinout, foot print, cost and features otherwise it would just be a new product. Ideally you would find a way to source the Teensy directly bypassing Sparkfun.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation
by ptorrone on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @11:16AM
(#46617869)
sparkfun is the single source supplier (and now maker of the product).
Re:SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation
by 15155 on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @11:18AM
(#46617910)
Spinning an IMXRT1062/IMXRT1064 design sans the terrible Teensy bootloader should take a day or two at most.
These chips have perfectly-fine ROM USB bootloaders and SWD, don't ruin them by adding extra garbage.
Re:SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation
by djmips on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @06:04PM
(#46625248)
The layout of the Teensy 4.x was challenging as I recall with the speeds involved. But maybe you are a demigod of compact high clock designs.
Re:SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation
by 15155 on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @10:03PM
(#46627522)
Nothing on that board is remotely high speed or challenging.
USB HS on a board that small is a non issue: it's one measly differential pair with easy impedance requirements.
Re:SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation
by djmips on Thursday January 15, 2026 @12:35AM
(#46628466)
Go ahead and make one then, we'll be thankful.
Re:SparkFun Officially Dropping AdaFruit due to CoC Violation
by jacquesm on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @01:21PM
(#46620094)
Yes, obviously, but they don't make the chips, so can't you just source the exact same chip, make thing pin compatible and call it a day? Then you'd have a drop in replacement, any changes you make will cause disruption for people downstream.