i.MX6Q: VDDHIGH_IN and VDD_SNVS_IN current compensation

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

i.MX6Q: VDDHIGH_IN and VDD_SNVS_IN current compensation

Jump to solution
987 Views
norishinozaki
Contributor V

Hello Champs,

In order to cope with higher current requirement for VDDHIGH_IN and VDD_SNVS_IN,

my customer is trying to use the i.MX6Q SabreSD schematics' option.

"Optional LDO" for VDD_SNVS_IN, and FP0100F0 SW4(3.15V) for VDDHIGH_IN.

Now we are wondering what this D10 NSR0320 is for.

pastedImage_3.png

#1

In the original design VDDHIGH_IN(VGEN5) is 2.8V and VDD_SNVS_IN is 3.0V.

Now they are trying to use 3.15V for VDDHIGH_IN, which is bigger than VDD_SNVS_IN 3.0V.

What should the D10 be handled in this new design?

#2

In the Reference Manual, there is no power up sequence for VDDHIGH_IN.

Is the startup order 6 of SW4 OK for VDDHIGH_IN?

Because the original VDDHIGH_IN order VGEN5_SEQ is 12.

Best regards,

Nori Shinozaki

Labels (2)
1 Solution
708 Views
igorpadykov
NXP Employee
NXP Employee

Hi Nori

separate seems better as allows to provide better filtered

power for both VDD_SNVS_IN and VDDHIGH_IN.

Best regards

igor

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
8 Replies
708 Views
igorpadykov
NXP Employee
NXP Employee

Hi Nori

1. D10 is not needed, its purpose (useful on older processor versions )

described on p.2 sabre schematic spf-27392

spf-27392 p.2.jpg

2. yes startup order 6 of SW4 is OK for VDDHIGH_IN.

Best regards

igor

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: If this post answers your question, please click the Correct Answer button. Thank you!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Kudos
708 Views
norishinozaki
Contributor V

Hello Igor,

Thank you!

Then can we supply VDDHIGH_IN and VDD_SNVS_IN from the same source(SW4-3.15V) at the same time(at the very beginning)?

Best regards,

Nori Shinozaki

0 Kudos
708 Views
igorpadykov
NXP Employee
NXP Employee

Hi Nori

right, datasheet provides such possibility

1.jpg

Best regards

igor

0 Kudos
708 Views
norishinozaki
Contributor V

Thanks Igor,

So in conclusion, is this design Ok to provide enough current both VDD_SNVS_IN and VDDHIGH_IN?

From PF0100 datasheet, SW4 can provide 1000mA.

SW4.png

Best regards,

Nori Shinozaki

0 Kudos
708 Views
igorpadykov
NXP Employee
NXP Employee

Hi Nori

I think it is good for providing enough current for both VDD_SNVS_IN and VDDHIGH_IN.

Best regards

igor

0 Kudos
707 Views
norishinozaki
Contributor V

Igor,

Do you suggest to provide current with VDDHIGH_IN and VDD_SNVS_IN separately as follow?

For VDDHIGH_IN:

SW4_VDDHIGH_IN.png

For VDD_SNVS_IN:

SNVS_IN.png

Which is better do you think?

Best regards,

Nori Shinozaki

0 Kudos
709 Views
igorpadykov
NXP Employee
NXP Employee

Hi Nori

separate seems better as allows to provide better filtered

power for both VDD_SNVS_IN and VDDHIGH_IN.

Best regards

igor

0 Kudos
708 Views
norishinozaki
Contributor V

Hello Igor,

Thanks for your advise!

Best regards,

Nori Shinozaki

0 Kudos