On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:56:55PM +0200, Mogens Lauridsen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:07:11PM +0200, Mogens Lauridsen wrote: > >> PLL3 was first set to 400MHz and then some peripheral was switched > >> to PLL3. Finally PLL3 was set to 216MHz. This could make some > >> i.MX538 hang in a dead loop in the boot process. > > > > Let's see what the code currently does: > > > > By reset default the clock path to the DDR is: > > > > PLL2 (192MHz) -> periph_clk -> main_bus_clk -> axi_a_podf -> axi_a (/1 = 192MHz) -> ddr_clk_root > > > > PLL2 is running at 192MHz. The code now tries to switch PLL2 from 192MHz > > to 400MHz. This requires that the RAM is driven by some other clock > > during > > the PLL reconfiguration. The code switches the clock path to: > > > > PLL3 (400MHz) -> periph_clk -> main_bus_clk -> axi_a_podf -> axi_a (/2 = 200MHz) -> ddr_clk_root > > > > Then PLL2 is reconfigured to 400MHz and the DDR clock path is switched > > back to the original path, this time with the PLL runnning at 400MHz, so > > RAM is then running at the desired speed. > > > > The code configures PLL3 to 400MHz probably to keep the DDR frequency > > nearly constant during the transition. > > > > I have no idea why your change helps you. When I understand correctly > > then you are running nearly at half the frequency during the transition > > (400/216). > > > > I'm afraid to merge such change as long as we do not fully understand > > what we are doing and why it helps. > I see your point. > I don't know exactly why it helps. But to me it looks suspicious to > set a clock to 400MHz > which in the end only is suppose to run at 216 MHz. I fear that there are small > differences in the individual iMX538 and in some of them the pll might > not always be able > to get a lock at the high frequency. You should be able to test this. In this case the code should hang in the loop waiting for the PLL lock. Is that the case? > The problem seem to have some > relationship with the temperature of the chip. (Higher temperature also seem > to solve the problem). > > > > BTW the current code is the same as on U-Boot which is derived from the > > original Freescale code, so this is not exactly new or barebox specific. > Yes, I did see that the code has been in barebox since 2011. I am also > puzzled why we see this, and nobody else has seen/reported it. We > are using the i.MX538 which is in a pop package with the DDR mounted > on the top of the i.MX. This chip might not be widely used. > > > > Do you have anything special in your dcd table that influences the > > clocks in an unexpected way? > Not as far as I know. Could you give me a hint of what I should look for? Writes to the CCM register space (0x53fd4xxx) in the imxcfg file for your board. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
