topic Re: Why using a PF0100 instead PF3000? in Power Management

Why using a PF0100 instead PF3000?

massimo2 — Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:35:03 GMT

Hello
I'm just curious. In an application where power and voltages of pf3000 are enough...why shoulld i chose a pf0200 for a i.mx6 Solo? ( for example)

I'm not in hurry with a project, i'm just curious. I expect that a pf3000 with right OTP configuration should power a Solo processor.

Re: Why using a PF0100 instead PF3000?

reyes — Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:35:31 GMT

Hi,

As you properly mentioned, power and voltages of PF3000 are enough to turn on the i.mx6 Solo, however, I would strongly recommend to use the PF0200 the main reason that this PMIC is already in the i.mx6 Solo BSP plus you can find it in the reference design: https://www.nxp.com/design/development-boards/i.mx-evaluation-and-development-boards/sabre-board-for-smart-devices-based-on-the-i.mx-6solox-applications-processors:RD-IMX6SX-SABRE

The reason of why NXP decided to use the PF0200/PF0100 for the i.MX6 Solo reference design is because the PF3000 was not launched when the i.MX6 Solo was launched. Plus the PF0200 it is a good PMIC to complete all the power requirements of this processor.

Regards,

Jose

Re: Why using a PF0100 instead PF3000?

massimo2 — Thu, 24 Oct 2019 07:01:17 GMT

Thank you.
I already used it for ULL, that is why i asked. PF3000 is quite cheaper expecially if you buy large amount for multiple projects. However i will stay on pf0200 as recommended. (Time to market cleary wins against price differencees)