> There are people that think all kinds of stupid stuff, we shouldn't
> let
> it divert us from reality.
> - -Andy
If I'd read it on a wet t-shirt, I'd believe it, but as it stands,
just some dork email .. meh. I want to BELIEVE!
;
--
Jay Vaughan
__
Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> Fine! But where in this description is the point about ME suggesting sth
> like routing (new) GPIO to all sorts of peripherals???
Ah, this was the mail that scared me:
https://lists.internal.openmoko.org/pipermail/gta03/2008-August/000497.html
> I'm well aware about the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| Am Mi 20. August 2008 schrieb Werner Almesberger:
|> Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
|>> HUH? Please give a pointer or quote! :-(
|> Phew. Instead of spending the rest of the day searching through our
|> archives
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| On 8/20/08, Andy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|> Yes, but the datasheet does not have all the info. There are various
|> mask-programmed options on our variant I don't know are listed anywhere
|> e
Am Mi 20. August 2008 schrieb Werner Almesberger:
> Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> > HUH? Please give a pointer or quote! :-(
>
> Phew. Instead of spending the rest of the day searching through our
> archives for those old problems, let me just briefly describe what
> happened:
Fine! But where in th
On 8/20/08, Andy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but the datasheet does not have all the info. There are various
> mask-programmed options on our variant I don't know are listed anywhere
> externally. But the basic deal is it switches on a bunch of regulators
> all at the same moment
Joerg Reisenweber wrote:
> HUH? Please give a pointer or quote! :-(
Phew. Instead of spending the rest of the day searching through our
archives for those old problems, let me just briefly describe what
happened:
- GTA01: while powering down (PMU.NoPower), the GPIOs would "jerk",
causing MODEM_
> > If I'm in a situation where I absolutely want to make sure we don't
> > emit any power, I'd remove the battery anyway.
> OK, there are people who feel uncomfortable with a battery in *any*
cellphone
> nearby, when they have some confidential talk ;-)
OTOH, I'm more concerned about possible t
Am Mi 20. August 2008 schrieb Werner Almesberger:
> I don't have any specific problem I suspect to happen. I just wanted
> to point out the general problem (which seems particularly bad with
> those Samsung SoCs), which seems to be important since Joerg recently
> suggested to run all sorts of GPI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| On 8/20/08, Andy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> We have no control over PMU startup. It brings up various rails how it
|> likes all at the same time at levels it likes.
| The PCF50633 ?
| I have prin
Uwe Klein wrote:
> Would "reeducating" the PMU help?
If you have some technology how to alter the mask-programmed default
settings we (and probably lots of others as well) would be extremely
interested ;-)
- Werner
___
hardware mailing list
hardware@li
On 8/20/08, Andy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have no control over PMU startup. It brings up various rails how it
> likes all at the same time at levels it likes.
The PCF50633 ?
I have printed out the schematics but not committed them to memory yet.
>
> Problems with startup at low bat
Andy Green wrote:
> Have a look at the circuit and give some examples of signals that can be
> in this condition in "off" state, then we can talk about it. Otherwise
> it's just handwaving.
I don't have any specific problem I suspect to happen. I just wanted
to point out the general problem (whic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| On 8/20/08, Werner Almesberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|> That's why try to control as many signals to subsystems that are
|> active in PMU.STANDBY as possible from PMU GPIOs. And yes, it would
|> be
On 8/20/08, Werner Almesberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's why try to control as many signals to subsystems that are
> active in PMU.STANDBY as possible from PMU GPIOs. And yes, it would
> be great to have more GPIOs that are guaraneteed to have a defined
> state in PMU.STANDBY for thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| So unless we're absolutely sure no GPIO can ever have a non-zero
| potential (or only through a very large impedance) while we're in
Have a look at the circuit and give some examples of signals that can be
Andy Green wrote:
> We're talking about OFF state, not suspend.
Yes. What we had happen in GTA01 and HXD8 was power crawling into the
CPU over GPIOs that were still at a high potential. This in turn came
out again on GPIOs going to inputs, such as the PMU's power button
input or the GSM reset/butt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| Andy Green wrote:
|> When IO_3V3 goes down it goes down... the pcf50633 has special
|> arrangement to bring down "off" regulators to 0V.
|
| Yet, in the past, we observed problems with power sneaking through
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| On 8/20/08, Andy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|
|> So, which pins still have any high level that can feed GSM side through
|> protection diodes in this situation? CPU doesn't have any rail
above 0V.
Andy Green wrote:
> When IO_3V3 goes down it goes down... the pcf50633 has special
> arrangement to bring down "off" regulators to 0V.
Yet, in the past, we observed problems with power sneaking through
GPIOs from the permanently powered part of the system into the one
turned off. We're doing much
On 8/20/08, Andy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, which pins still have any high level that can feed GSM side through
> protection diodes in this situation? CPU doesn't have any rail above 0V...
Sorry for herding goats.
MY understanding was we talk about
CPU up _and_ GSM down.
i.e.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| On 8/20/08, Andy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|> Hash: SHA1
|>
|> Somebody in the thread at some point said:
|> | On 8/19/08, Joerg Reisenweber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/20/08, Andy Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> | On 8/19/08, Joerg Reisenweber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> |> This power removal is done by U1705, and it should relyably cut power
> when
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Somebody in the thread at some point said:
| On 8/19/08, Joerg Reisenweber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|> This power removal is done by U1705, and it should relyably cut power
when we
|> disable IO_3V3 what is quite normal for shutoff.
|> No special
On 8/19/08, Joerg Reisenweber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This power removal is done by U1705, and it should relyably cut power when we
> disable IO_3V3 what is quite normal for shutoff.
> No special kernel action required.
This is in a lot of cases a faulty assumtion.
Depending on the intern
25 matches
Mail list logo
