Hi,
We are using imx6Q sabresd platform for our development with Linux 3.14.28_1.0.0-GA BSP but initially we used Linux 3.10.17_1.0.0-GA BSP.
We have gone through below files from Linux 3.14.28_1.0.0-GA(File-1) and Linux 3.10.17_1.0.0-GA (FIle-2) BSPs.
File-1: ~/u-boot-imx/board/freescale/mx6sabresd/mx6sabresd.c
File-2: ~/u-boot-imx/board/freescale/mx6qsabresd/mx6qsabresd.c
We could see some changes are added in File-1(compare to File-2).
In below function, we understood that the CPU frequency is lowered to 400Mhz before doing the LDO bypass and CPU frequency is increased to 800Mhz after the LDO bypass settings.
"ldo_mode_set"
In FIle-2 (Linux 3.10.17_1.0.0-GA), the below function will do the LDO bypass settings without changing the CPU frequency.
"ldo_mode_set"
We would like to know, during the LDO bypass settings why the CPU frequency is lowered in File-1(Linux 3.14.28_1.0.0-GA)? Is it recommended to do the same.?
Thank You,
Regards,
Ansari
Solved! Go to Solution.
Dear Igor,
by looking inside u-boot code and the commits from FSL engineer, it seems that the older implementation is a violation of datasheet power constraint
I've search for some details inside the code/datasheet and I found the some information I sent to Abdul in meta-freescale mailing list:
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-freescale/2015-April/013447.html
WDYT about that?
Kind Regards,
Andrea
Dear Igor and Andrea,
Thank you for your valuable inputs.
Regards,
Ansari
Hi Abdul
CPU frequencylowering during the LDO bypass is not requirement,
but it provides less power spikes, so gives more board stability.
Best regards
igor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: If this post answers your question, please click the Correct Answer button. Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Igor,
by looking inside u-boot code and the commits from FSL engineer, it seems that the older implementation is a violation of datasheet power constraint
I've search for some details inside the code/datasheet and I found the some information I sent to Abdul in meta-freescale mailing list:
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-freescale/2015-April/013447.html
WDYT about that?
Kind Regards,
Andrea
Hi Andrea
I think these considerations are quite reasonable.
Best regards
igor