On 05/10/2015 04:46 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov wrote:
Hi Tim,
On 05/08/2015 10:26 PM, Tim Harvey wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Nikolay Dimitrov
<picmas...@mail.bg> wrote:
Hi Tim,
On 05/08/2015 06:42 PM, Tim Harvey wrote:
<snip>
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
Nikolay,
thats an issue in my patch if you don't have CONFIG_IMX6_THERMAL.
I'll fix in a followup patch version
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 ...
<snip>
Are there additional CONFIG dependencies?
Looks like CONFIG_IMX6_THERMAL also needs CONFIG_DM_THERMAL
(includes thermal-uclass from drivers/thermal/Makefile)
Thanks for testing this. If you can get it working please let me
know what the actual part markings are on the parts you test with.
The updated CONFIGs fixed the build. Here are the outputs of all
boards where I can easily run mainline U-Boot.
Riotboard 1, part number MCIMX6S5DVM10AB
======================================== CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO
rev1.1 commercial (0C to 95C) 996 MHz (at 792 MHz) CPU: Temperature
53 C
Riotboard 2, part number MCIMX6S5DVM10AC
======================================== CPU: Freescale i.MX6SOLO
rev1.2 commercial (0C to 95C) 996 MHz (at 792 MHz) CPU: Temperature
42 C
Marsboard, part number MCIMX6D5EYM10AC
====================================== CPU: Freescale i.MX6D rev1.2
extended commercial (-20C to 105C) 996 MHz (at 792 MHz) CPU:
Temperature 38 C
Btw, as the information in the "CPU:" line gets bigger and bigger,
it's probably worth thinking about splitting it into separate lines.
This will simplify the text formatting tricks, can be easily
controlled by CONFIG directives and can look neater. But even if you
don't change it, it looks fine to me - I like to see info, and if I
don't need it, I can always cut it off easily.
Thanks for working on this patch series.
Regards, Nikolay
PS: I have also some more customer boards with imx6d rev 1.3 and
some imx6q with unknown revisions, but can't test there as mainline
u-boot has broken spi flash support in SPL since 2014.07 and I hadn't
had time to fix it and port it (although I would love to).
Tested-by: Nikolay Dimitrov <picmas...@mail.bg>
Regards,
Nikolay
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
