From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 86073E002AC; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 04:12:19 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (picmaster[at]mail.bg) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [193.201.172.118 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from mx2.mail.bg (mx2.mail.bg [193.201.172.118]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63182E00288 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 04:12:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.40] (unknown [93.152.143.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.mail.bg (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CB4A60028C3; Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:12:09 +0200 (EET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mail.bg; s=default; t=1423915932; bh=c3B09kaO/coJqiNe4GFGy3Ke9aBcdn7xDki6a1XTnbc=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=iAeuRPzwEtcjYt5pd04zH0+zpcEPQ6WaKmZPl281ipNCoeUSycmrHZwNZ+zPBojOd 87CDl+v4WVo9eIFxi18CqtQ3Bnzh+NmNoAtacQn1SxoCs1wnypmgdRBjFfRak5sX3N l1HGSv69ZdGrgvcSaaLKOhJQuWpPpANmZLruEcWo= Message-ID: <54DF3B95.5010506@mail.bg> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:12:05 +0200 From: Nikolay Dimitrov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?RXJpYyBCw6luYXJk?= References: <54C16AB6.20605@mail.bg> <54C2B900.8000807@mail.bg> <54C74EE4.8070308@mail.bg> <54C7BC84.90104@mail.bg> <02BDCB585301A044B5DBBDB58DDFDA01188D46@dor-sms-xch01.digi.com> <54C7F3B3.3080409@mail.bg> <20150127215135.6138c753@e6520eb.localdomain> <54C812B2.8020606@mail.bg> <20150127235901.4a3e5074@e6520eb.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20150127235901.4a3e5074@e6520eb.localdomain> Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" , Otavio Salvador Subject: Re: imx6 silent memory corruption X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:12:19 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Eric, On 01/28/2015 12:59 AM, Eric Bénard wrote: > Hi Nikolay, > > Le Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:35:30 +0200, > Nikolay Dimitrov a écrit : >> On 01/27/2015 10:51 PM, Eric Bénard wrote: >>> Hi Nikolay, >>> >>> Le Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:23:15 +0200, >>> Nikolay Dimitrov a écrit : >>>> On 01/27/2015 07:40 PM, Gonzalez, Alex wrote: >>>>> Nikolay, >>>>> >>>>> Assuming this is a custom board, if you are using different memory or with a different configuration from the reference designs, you may need to change the memory calibration to suit the hardware. Freescale support can provide an application note that explains how to perform the calibration over a representative sample of boards. >>>> >>>> Yes, this is a custom board. I've already did the DDR3 calibration for >>>> this design and validated it with 48h testing with the Freescale DDR >>>> stress test tool (available on the IMX Community site). >>>> >>> are you sure of the stability of your power supplies under loard (not >>> only the memories' one) ? >> >> Hmm, very good question. I haven't attached a scope to the voltage >> rails, but that can be done easily. What would you advice for >> considering as an acceptable voltage noise amplitude on the CPU rails? >> > as small as possible and no spikes under load with probe as close as > possible to the CPU and good GND reference. Thanks for the remark. It turned out that the board indeed had high power supply noise, which was causing this instability. Regards, Nikolay