Hi Tim,
On 05/08/2015 06:42 PM, Tim Harvey wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Markus Niebel <list-09_u-b...@tqsc.de> wrote:
Hello Tim,
<snip>
IMX6Q automotive (1GHz capable) powering up at 800MHz:
- before:
CPU: Freescale i.MX6Q rev1.2 at 792 MHz
- after Patch 1/4:
CPU: Freescale i.MX6Q rev1.2 996 MHz (at 792 MHz)
- after Patch 3/4 (if CONFIG_IMX6_THERMAL defined)
CPU: Freescale i.MX6Q rev1.2 automotive (-40C to 125C) 996 MHz (at 792 MHz)
IMX6S industrial (800MHz capable) powering up at 800MHz:
- before:
CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO rev1.2 at 792 MHz
- after Patch 1/4: (max speed == cur speed)
CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO rev1.2 792 MHz
- after Patch 3/4 (if CONFIG_IMX6_THERMAL defined)
CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO rev1.2 industrial (-40C to 105C) 792 MHz
<snip>
Where do get the speed grade ant temperature grade information from i.MX6SOLO /
DL from?
The fusemap in the reference manual says nothing about these info for SOLO / DL
and a Freescale
FAE stated that these information is not present in the fuses for SOLO / DL.
Regards,
Markus
Markus,
Your right - There is no indication in the IMX6SDLRM that OTP
indicates either temperature grade 'or' speed grade, however my
testing looks like they implement the same OTP settings for this as
the IMX6DUAL/IMX6QUAD as indicated in the IMX6DQRM.
I have tested these patches with the following SoC's I have available:
- MCIMX6S7CVM08AC (IMX6S r1.2, Industrial temp, 800MHz) - shows
'industrial (-40C to 105C) 792 MHz' (correct)
- MCIMX6S5EVM10AC (IMX6S r1.2, Extended Commercial temp, 1GHz) - shows
'extended commercial (-20C to 105C) 996 MHz (at 792 MHz)' (correct)
- MCIMX6U7CVM08AB (IMX6DL r1.1, Industrial temp, 800MHz) - shows
'industrial (-40C to 105C) 792 MHz' (correct)
- MCIMX6Q6AVT10AC (IMX6Q r1.2. Automotive temp, 1GHz) - shows
'automotive (-40C to 125C) 996 MHz (at 792 MHz)' (correct)
I'll send our FAE a question to verify - perhaps your FAE simply
answered the questions based on the reference manual (which is
notoriously lacking info and in some cases wrong).
I encourage anyone with additional parts to test these patches and
report if they show accurate information. If anyone has any IMX6SX I
would appreciate removing the check that ignores the OTP for that and
seeing if the results make sense.
Here are the results from riotboard (imx6s) testing with your patches
against Stefano's tree:
Before:
CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO rev1.1 at 792 MHz
After patch 1:
CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO rev1.1 996 MHz (at 792 MHz)
After patch 2:
CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO rev1.1 996 MHz (at 792 MHz)
After patch 3:
CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO rev1.1 // No idea why I lost the MHz values
After patch 4:
CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO rev1.1
MHz values are missing after patch 3, and looking diagonally at the
code I don't see a reason. Next, riotboard doesn't have
CONFIG_IMX6_THERMAL by default. When added, I get this:
$ make u-boot.imx
...
OBJCOPY examples/standalone/hello_world.bin
LDS u-boot.lds
LD u-boot
arch/arm/imx-common/built-in.o: In function `print_cpuinfo':
/home/picmaster/work/u-boot-imx/arch/arm/imx-common/cpu.c:196: undefined
reference to `uclass_get_device'
/home/picmaster/work/u-boot-imx/arch/arm/imx-common/cpu.c:198: undefined
reference to `thermal_get_temp'
drivers/built-in.o: In function `imx_thermal_probe':
/home/picmaster/work/u-boot-imx/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c:155:
undefined reference to `dev_get_platdata'
/home/picmaster/work/u-boot-imx/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c:156:
undefined reference to `dev_get_priv'
drivers/built-in.o: In function `read_cpu_temperature':
/home/picmaster/work/u-boot-imx/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c:46:
undefined reference to `dev_get_platdata'
/home/picmaster/work/u-boot-imx/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c:48:
undefined reference to `dev_get_priv'
drivers/built-in.o: In function `imx_thermal_get_temp':
/home/picmaster/work/u-boot-imx/drivers/thermal/imx_thermal.c:127:
undefined reference to `dev_get_priv'
ld.bfd: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.22 assertion fail
../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:7498
ld.bfd: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.22 assertion fail
../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:7498
ld.bfd: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.22 assertion fail
../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:7498
ld.bfd: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.22 assertion fail
../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:7498
ld.bfd: BFD (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.22 assertion fail
../../bfd/elf32-arm.c:13830
Segmentation fault
make: *** [u-boot] Error 139
Are there additional CONFIG dependencies?
Regards,
Nikolay
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
