[FAQ] AM644x / AM642x / AM641x / AM243x (ALV) Design Recommendations / Custom board hardware design – common queries for PMIC TPS65219 and TPS65220

HI Board designers,

Refer below, common E2E queries and replies for TPS65219

https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management-group/power-management/f/power-management-forum/1339010/tps65220-pmic-features-understanding?tisearch=e2e-sitesearch&keymatch=tps65220#

https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management-group/power-management/f/power-management-forum/1329416/tps65220-request-a-tps65220-circuit-review-and-related-inquiries-request-a-review?tisearch=e2e-sitesearch&keymatch=tps65220#

https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management-group/power-management/f/power-management-forum/1308575/faq-tps65220-tps6522053rhbr-schematic-review-for-am64x/4979020#4979020

https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management-group/power-management/f/power-management-forum/1290837/tps65220-tps6522053rhbr?tisearch=e2e-sitesearch&keymatch=tps65220#

 Please find the responses below and let us know if you have any questions.

• The VSEL_SD/VSEL_DDR pin is configured to set the output voltage on LDO1 which is a free 400mA power resource. If customer is not using LDO1, then they can connect the VSEL_SD pin to ground with a pull-down resistor. Here is the configured polarity of the VSEL_SD pin:
  
  • If VSEL_SD is HIGH (pull-up to the output of the 3.3V load switch), LDO1 = 3.3V (requires 3.3V on PVIN_LDO1)
  • If VSEL_SD is LOW (pull-down to GND), LDO1 = 1.8V
• The nRSTOUT pin is used to drive the MCU_PORz in the recommended PDN. The MCU_PORz on the processor side has a 1.8V domain. If nRSTOUT is directly connected to MCU_PORz, it will need a pull-up to a 1.8V supply (i.e. Buck2). If customer has a buffer, AND gate or any other logic circuitry between nRSTOUT and MCU_PORz, then the pull-up on the PMIC side can be either 1.8V or 3.3V (output of 3.3V load switch).

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers

Input regarding selection of PMIC:

The recommend PMIC(s) on the product folder or used on the SK or EVM schematics has been designed considering the power sequencing, supply rail output slew, nRSTOUT (reset output) delay output from PMIC connected to MCU_PORz after all the supplies ramp for clock to be stable and the sizing of the supply rails based on the processor worst case current draw.

When choosing an alternate non-TI PMIC, the recommendation for custom board designers is to review the relevant collaterals including the data sheet and Maximum Current Ratings document and follow the requirements/recommendations. The recommendation is to review the slew rate requirements, Power-up and power-down sequence sections of the data sheet and confirm the non-TI PMIC based power architecture follows the recommendation.

An important point to note is the processor does not support dynamic scaling of the core voltage or the analog supplies.

Inputs regarding supply decay

Refer below FAQ

https://e2e.ti.com/support/processors-group/processors/f/processors-forum/1485094/faq-am62a7-power-rails-decay-note-in-latest-datasheet/5703704#5703704

I have placed the note in both sections because it applies to both power-up and power-down. The power-up sequence should not begin until all power rails are below 300mV, and the power-down sequence is not complete until all power rails are below 300mV.

Regards,

Sreenivasa

HI Board designers, 

Inputs on power supply sizing:

Using Maximum Current Ratings application note vs Power Estimation Tool PET 

The max current app note is representing the current draw for a group of rails. Please note that it is not expected for this current to necessarily be replicated in the power estimation tool. The PET will tend to show more average use case power while the max current app note is intended to be used for power supply sizing as it will allow for the max transient on these groups with some margin. The PET should not be used for power supply sizing.

Power Estimation Tool (PET) and the max current rating apps note serve two different purposes. The PET is used to estimate active power consumption for a specific use case/application. The max current rating apps note can be used for supply sizing when designing a custom power solution

Regards,

Sreenivasa

HI Board designers, 

Note:

How were these pdn specs derived? Is it based on worst case analysis?

Yes it is based on worst case load transient estimates for a given SoC design.

The Target impedance for AM62x and AM62xSiP will be identical as the same worst case load transients exist on both designs since they share the same die.

Via sharing recommendations in the escape application note are only made to help guide a customer to escape the design with fewer vias in the VCA regions. The number of vias used for escaping signals will ultimately depend on the specific customer use-case, the number of interfaces that need to be implemented and the layer count. If the specific use case allows the customer to use more vias for VDD_CORE in the VCA regions, that is definitely a valid approach. Per-pin loop inductance guidelines are more applicable for single-pin supplies that are connected to a decap. In case of multi-pin supplies like VDD_CORE where there are a number of parallel connections to multiple pins/decap thru multiple vias, it is hard to tie it back in to a per-pin requirement. The most important target to meet is the impedance target specified in Table 7-6 of the PDN Applications note. This table is the same for AM62x and AM62x SiP.

We do not include Buck output inductance in PDN simulations.

For VDDS_DDR: we do not recommend using target impedance as the signoff for DDR.
Refer to the AM62x, AM62Lx DDR Board Design and Layout Guidelines which outlines all details of power aware SI/PI simulations
that need to be run. The eye mask checks from these power aware simulations are the signoff.

Power Distribution Networks: Implementation and Analysis

Sitara Processor Power Distribution Networks: Implementation and Analysis

https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/sprac76

Note: The decoupling capacitor numbers and type on the SK/EVM are only intended to serve as a guideline for customers. The true pass/fail criteria is the target impedance published in the PDN app note.

High Speed Board design and Signal integrity simulation 

https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spraar7

https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spracn9

https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/sprabi1

We are using AM6442BSDGHAALV in one of our design and we are calculating the ZTarget for VDD_CORE using the below formula

Ztarget = (Voltage Rail x %Ripple) / 0.5 x Imax

                   Voltage Rail = 0.75V

                   %Ripple = 1.6%

                   Imax = 2A

        %Ripple = 1.6% had arrived based on the below methodology.

1) We are using the PMIC: TPS6522053RHBR whose BUCK-1 Minimum output voltage is 0.73875V (0.75V Typical). Considering the ripple of -1.5% as the worst-case scenario.

2) We are using the Processor: AM6442BSDGHAALV whose Minimum Input Voltage of VDD_CORE (0.75V Typical) is 0.715V. whose minimum ripple is calculated to be -4.66667%.

3) Now ripple margin is calculated to be (-4.66667) - (-1.5) = -3.16667%

4) Furthermore -3.16667 is divided by 2 to have a stringent Ztarget for VDD_CORE i,e.: (-3.16667 / 2) = 1.58333% rounding off as 1.6%.

Now while substituting the above values to the Ztarget formula, we get:

                 Ztarget = (0.75V x 1.6%) / (0.5 x 2A) = 12mΩ.

But when we refer the TI document "SPRAC76G – NOVEMBER 2022 – REVISED FEBRUARY 2024" (Sitara Processor Power Distribution Networks: Implementation and Analysis) in Table 7-7 we see the different Ztarget values, below is the snapshot of the same for your reference.

Can you please explain us how did TI arrive to the different Ztarget values as given below?

                       10mΩ for ≤1MHz

                       34mΩ for 1-20 MHz 

                       35mΩ for 20-50MHz

For arriving to the above values, was the input voltage to VDD_CORE considered as an Ideal Voltage as 0.75V?

For AM64x we did not use the load transient approach for calculating target -Z. We extracted the impedance plot for our EVM (which was found to pass characterization) and provided the AC impedance as targets for the different frequency bands.

 Also note that a target of 1.6% will be excessively stringent for all frequency bands. Typically we use:

 3% for < 1MHZ

5% for 1 – 20 MHz

10% for 20-50 MHz

That is because the effectiveness of board decap will be much diminished for higher frequency transients due to the additional pkg/brd inductance seen by the decaps. The higher freq transients will depend on effectiveness of on-die decap to be adequately suppressed.

Inputs on PDN 

(+) [FAQ] AM62A3-Q1: AM62A3-Q1 PDN Power SI SIMULATION Questions - Processors forum - Processors - TI E2E support forums

Please refer below inputs i received:

Please note these are only recommendations and they need to contact their EDA vendor on what works best for their specific simulation environment.
1、Do I need to separate VDD_CORE-1 to 17 for simulation, or use VDD_CORE as a Port?
TI>> You can lump all VDD_CORE BGAs together as a single terminal for the port
2、Do I need to include the PMIC FB loop in the simulation?
TI>> If you are simulating only for AC impedance (target impedance checks) this is not required. The board layout from the inductor onwards (inductor not included) can be modeled and PMIC FB loop can be studied separately.
3、 Is the simulation starting frequency from 1Hz or from a minimum of 100kHz for the capacitor S2P?
TI>> There should be some DC frequency points added. Please check with your EDA vendor on the exact setup and simulation points needed to generate causal models.

I added additional inputs related to PDN and decoupling capacitors for reference.

The voltage at the device ball must never be below the MIN voltage or above the MAX voltage for any amount of time. This requirement includes dynamic voltage events such as AC ripple, voltage transients, voltage dips, and so forth

PCB design & Dcap scheme combine to form your board's Power Distribution Network (PDN) that should meet recommended SoC PI performance targets for robust processor operations. Each PCB design has a "unique finger-print" based upon component placements, power & Gnd routing, layer assignments, via qtys & locations, Dcap mounting & loop inductance, Dcap parameters, etc. As a result, an optimized Dcap scheme will vary from one PCB design to another but should provide a system PDN that meets PI performance targets when combined together. Similarly, the PI simulation tools can impact the estimated ZvsF response values, especially above 3.0MHz where non-3D extraction tools can return better Z values (10-15% less than more accurate 3D tools). This ican be due to a non-3D tool is only extracting a PCB's X & Y design elements & assuming a power & Gnd via inductances.  Due to the 3D nature of current flow across & through a PCB from power & Gnd planes on different PCB layers, a 3D extraction gives a more accurate series inductance estimate needed to more accurately model power & Gnd vias which leads to a more accurate power rail impedance (ZvsF) response

it would be difficult to comment on reducing the amount of decoupling caps without going through the exercise ourselves.  That said, you can likely prioritize the high-current and sensitive analog rails, then look to share bypass caps when you hit space constraints.  Having decap as close to the BGA as possible will reduce inductance and improve their efficacy (two supply vias with a shared decap would be better than a decap located far away in most circumstances). 

Please be aware that each PCB design is unique and may need different Dcap scheme to meet recommended PI parameter targets

Regarding decoupling capacitors, the recommendation is to start with the EVMs decoupling and then optimize (if needed) based on your power simulation results.

For the placement of the Caps and values, we would still recommend using the EVM as a reference along with the PDN document.

SK uses an EMI Filter at 1uF, can I replace it with a general ceramic capacitor?

The SK performance has been tested with 3-T terminal caps.

You may have to add multiple 2-T caps for each cap and perform simulations to finalize the values.

(50) [DRA829] SOM Schematic has "NFM15HC105D0G" and "NFM18HC106D0G" - Processors forum - Processors - TI E2E support forums

(49) TDA4VH-Q1: TDA4VH Power 3T filter capacitor questions - Processors forum - Processors - TI E2E support forums

PDN application note

https://www.ti.com/lit/an/sprac76g/sprac76g.pdf

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hello Board designers 

Queries regarding reducing decaps for the VDD_CORE and other supplies:

Customer is looking to reduce the decaps on the VDD_CORE. I am suggesting them to follow the PDN.

In case customer performs the required simulation and depending on the layout, I guess it should be possible to reduce the caps.

Yes that is correct. They can reduce the number of decaps but they need to ensure they follow the PDN app note guidelines and meet the target impedance requirements for VDD_CORE.

 Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers,

Refer below inputs for PMIC power sequencing.

AM6421: Sudden Loss of Power Impact on Power Down Sequence

(+) AM6421: Sudden Loss of Power Impact on Power Down Sequence - Processors forum - Processors - TI E2E support forums

 As stated in the AM64x datasheet, "The potential applied to VDDR_CORE must never be greater than the potential applied to VDD_CORE + 0.18V during power-up or power-down. This requires VDD_CORE to ramp up before and ramp down after VDDR_CORE when VDD_CORE is operating at 0.75V". AM64 was characterized under operating conditions so we cannot guarantee the expected operation beyond the conditions specified in the datasheet. PCB designers are responsible for validating and characterizing the SoC under specific use case conditions to confirm it meets the application system level requirements. 

Handling uncontrolled power-down requires additional considerations in the design like adding additional input capacitance or a discrete supervisor to monitor voltage at the power source and trigger an OFF request before PMIC loses power. Here is an example FAQ for reference: https://e2e.ti.com/blogs_/b/powerhouse/posts/how-to-meet-power-sequencing-requirements-with-a-pmic.

Another option to consider to mitigate the sequencing concerns during uncontrolled power-down is running the main CORE at 0.85V which allows to combine VDD_CORE and VDDR_CORE together. In this scenario both rails are supplied by the same PMIC DCDC regulator.

The power-down sequence diagram hae been updated. We are basically allowing the IO supply to delay their turn-off until the last core supply is turned off. The previous power-down diagram showed the IO supplies being turned off by the time VDD_CORE was turned off. This is still the preferred sequence, if possible, to help prevent the IOs from doing unpredictable things during power-down since logic in the core domain controls the IO functions. However, we found this was difficult to implement and decided the internal circuits that force the IOs to a known state until VDD_CORE ramps-up should perform a similar task during power down when VDD_CORE is lost before the IO supply. We do not want customers leaving IO supplies powered for long periods of time after the VDD_CORE is turned off, so we decided to extend each IO supply turn off until the last core rail is turned off as way to limit the time IO are turned on after VDD_CORE is turned off.

It appears you are showing an uncontrolled power-down sequence where all supplies are turned off at the same time, which is consistent with the new power-down diagram as long as you ensure the potential applied to VDDR_CORE is never greater than the potential applied to VDD_CORE + 0.18V during power-up or power-down. This is the only absolute voltage difference that must be managed during power-down.

The following note will is added:
All power rails must be turned off and decay below 300mV before initiating a new power-up sequence anytime a power rail drops below the minimum value defined in Recommended Operating Conditions. The only exception is when entering/exiting Partial IO low power mode with VDDSHV_CANUART and VDD_CANUART sourced from an always on power source. For this use case the VDDSHV_CANUART and VDD_CANUART power rails are allowed to remain on.

One issue is, that we can't guarantee the decay down to 300mV. As U18S takes up to 4 sec for decay, there is a high probability to start a new power-up cycle before it reaches 300mV. Can you assess, what can happen in this case? Do you expect any malfunction or damage due to this improper power cycle?
I'm not aware of any way this can damage the AM62x device. There could be use cases where this causes a functional issue in your system.

I also do not anticipate an issue with the AM62x device because the power-on reset input should reset every circuit in the device to the same known state every time reset is asserted. Therefore, the AM62x device should not retain any previous state held by the power not fully decaying. However, this operating condition was not expected and not validated.

You could encounter system level issues, where other components in your system will not function if you do not allow all supplies to decay. For example: Not allowing the supplies to decay may be a problem for an SD Card connected to AM62x since the SD Card is only reset when you cycle its power, and its supply voltage drops below a specific value defined in the SDIO standard. This is required because SD Cards do not have a reset pin, so they have an internal reset circuit that generates a reset by monitoring the SD Card supply voltage. This can be a problem if the SD Card was previously told to switch to 1.8V IO signaling and you short cycle the power supply such that the AM62x MMCSD host is reset and begins communicating with the SD Card using its default 3.3V IO signaling when the SD Card is still configured to 1.8V signaling because it was not reset.

We recommend customers design their system to decay below 300mv to minimize any risk of these type of problems.

e2e.ti.com/.../am62a7-q1-am62a7-q1-power-down-sequence

e2e.ti.com/.../faq-am625-long-term-effects-of-simultaneously-power-down-sequencing-of-all-voltage-rails
VDD_CANUART, VDD_CORE, VDDA_CORE_CSIRX0, VDDA_CORE_USB, and VDDA_DDR_PLL0 can be operated at 0.75V or 0.85V. When these supplies are operating at 0.85V, they shall be powered from the same source as VDDR_CORE and ramped during the 0.85V ramp period defined by this waveform.
If this is the case, you will not need to worry with any power-down sequencing issues since all of the power rails with sequencing concerns are powered by the same source.

e2e.ti.com/.../am62a7-emmc-power-down-interface
In general, there are two cases that either sudden power loss or software triggered/aware power down.

In the first case, there won't be any time for software to flash cached data to eMMC. If you use Linux, journal filesytem might help in this case. If system power loss happens during eMMC write is in progress, the data would be corrupted. You would need backup battery to provide time for software to finish the eMMC write.

In the second case, software has enough time to finish eMMC write then trigger system power down. In Linux, using poweroff command is one of the examples.

e2e.ti.com/.../am6422-power-up-down-sequencing
Did you read notes 8 and 9 associated with the power-up sequence and notes 3 and 4 associated with the power-down sequence?

These notes are describing why VDD_CORE is shown in two waveforms and identifies which waveform applies to VDD_CORE based on the operating voltage.

There is only one firm requirement for AM64x power-down. See note 5 associated with the power-down sequence.

The potential applied to VDDR_CORE must never be greater than the potential applied to VDD_CORE + 0.18V during power-up or power-down. This requires VDD_CORE to ramp up before and ramp down after VDDR_CORE when VDD_CORE is operating at 0.75V. VDD_CORE does not have any ramp requirements beyond the one defined for VDDR_CORE. VDD_CORE and VDDR_CORE are expected to be powered by the same source so they ramp together when VDD_CORE is operating at 0.85V.

e2e.ti.com/.../am625-power-down-sequence-inconsistency-between-am625-and-tps65219
As shown in the AM62x datasheet, VDDSHV4/5/6 (waveform D) were designed to support power-up, power-down, or dynamic voltage change without any dependency on other power rails. All the remaining rails (except VDD_CORE and CANUART) can be turned OFF at the same time.

The main power-down requirement is for the CORE rails, if you are running VDD_CORE at 0.75V, then it must turn-OFF after VDDR_CORE. These are waveforms G and H. The power-down sequence configured on TPS6521902 meets this requirement.

e2e.ti.com/.../am620-q1-power-up-down-timing
7.11.2.2.1 Power-Up Sequencing (Figure 7-5. Power-Up Sequencing)
We do not have any time specified between 2 supplies except that the previous supply needs to be ramped and stable before the start of the next supply ramp. The sequence is required to be followed and is provided only to prevent potential differences.

7.11.2.2.2 Power-Down Sequencing (Figure 7-6. Power-Dow)
We do not have a ramp time specified for the power-down. The Power-down sequence is required to be followed.

The supplies are expected to fall below 0.3 V before the start of next power-up sequence.

e2e.ti.com/.../4769871
Question: Is it acceptable if VDDR_CORE is greater than VDD_CORE + 0,3V peak for 1ms? What may happen as consequence? Physical destruction, latch up effects?
The only reason we have a specific power-up sequence is to prevent high transient inrush current into the RAM array by applying power to the control circuits that wrap the array first. The inrush current will be controlled as long as these circuits are powered first. The vendor is not aware of a specific concern when the power-down sequence is not followed, but they have not been willing to back-off on the requirement.
I’m not certain, but suspect they performed all of their design analysis based on the power sequence requirements and are not willing to revisit this topic as it would take a significant effort.
So I have no choice, but to leave the power-down sequence requirement in the datasheet.

e2e.ti.com/.../am6421-power-down-sequence
The diagonal or hash marks represent multiple power signals. The hatch marks within a shaded region is used to represent multiple power rails just in case all power rails represented by a waveform are not powered from the same source. For example, there may be a reason to power some 1.8V power rails form one source while other 1.8V rails are powered from another source.
e2e.ti.com/.../am6442-power-up-down-sequence
1) I assume you are asking if VDD_CORE can ramp up before the power rail sourcing VDDS_DDR and VDDS_DDRC based on the circled portion of waveforms included with your question. If so, the answer is yes.
2) The shaded region of the waveform represents a range of time where a supply may ramp up/down relative to other supply rails. The hatch marks within a shaded region is used to represent multiple power rails just in case all power rails represented by a waveform are not powered from the same source. For example, there may be a reason to power some 1.8V power rails form one source while other 1.8V rails are powered from another source.

e2e.ti.com/.../4830403
We do not distinguish between controlled vs non-controlled power-down. We expect the system designer to implement a power solution that never violates our power-down sequence defined in the datasheet. They may need to characterize their power consumption on the various rails and size capacitors to hold some rails longer than others to provide the proper power-down sequence even when there is a non-controlled power-down event.

We also do not define what will happen to our device if they violate the power-down sequence because we never expect this to happen.

e2e.ti.com/.../am6421-vpp-power-down-sequence
Just above the screen capture you took, you may see 7.10.2.2 , instance 11 about the VPP supply:
"VPP is the 1.8V eFuse programming supply, which shall be left floating (HiZ) or grounded during power-up/
down sequences and during normal device operation. This supply shall only be sourced while programming
eFuse."
As detailed above, it should not be powered on during the Power-On or Power-Down sequence. It should only be powered when programming eFuse.

e2e.ti.com/.../am3352-overshoot-after-power-down

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers, 

PMIC capacitor and feedback recommendations

PMIC - feed back and jumper or 0R provisioning 

PMIC input capacitor connection recommendation:

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers, 

Inputs related to user programmable PMIC 

In case User-programmable power management IC (PMIC) is required, TPS6521905 with three step-down DC/DC converters and four LDOs can be considered.
Dynamic scaling of supplies is not allowed for the processor family.

https://www.ti.com/product/TPS6521905

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers, 

Refer below input related to eFuse caps and pinout

TPS22918 5.5-V, 2-A, 52-mΩ On-Resistance Load Switch

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers, 

Refer below input related to use of use of TPS6522430 with AM644x 

 https://e2e.ti.com/support/processors-group/processors/f/processors-forum/1549506/am6442-powering-am6442bsffhaalv-with-tps6522430rahrq1/6001560 

TPS6522430 is best option for you as it is already pre-programmed to provide the right order for the sequence. 

Do you see any potential issue regarding voltage stability, considering that in the pre-programmed version the TPS6522430 operates Buck1 and Buck2 in parallel for the core supply, which is actually designed for a higher load of around 10A?

In our application, according to the Power Estimator, the AM6442BSFFHAALV configuration requires only about 1.3 A for the core.

I don't see any issue with this lower load condition. Is the 1.3A the typical/average current of this rail or the absolute maximum which occurs during load transients?

https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management-group/power-management/f/power-management-forum/1500688/tps65220-and-functional-safety/5765992?tisearch=e2e-sitesearch&keymatch=tps65224%25252520AM64x#

TPS65220 is functional safety capable but not functional safety rated, meaning FIT rate calculation, FMD and pin FMA are available but functional safety certificate doesn't exists.

The multi PMIC mode comes into helpful when there are more rails on SoC and peripheral that needs to be powered but a single PMIC has fewer rails. I am not sure if a duplicate PMIC powering single AM64x is a possible solution. You can check with AM64 team. 

TPS65220 is not ASIL certified, but you can looks at TPS65224-Q1 for ASIL requirement.

From an internal point of view, is there any reason why I could not have two PMICs with their outputs tied together feeding the am64? Assuming they are tuned to near the exact output voltages, if one fails will there be a problem with backfeeding? Or during startup would there be a problem with the startup timing due to the other PMICs also coming up/ would this interfere with a single PMICs ov/uv circuitry? 

That is correct, the converters are not designed to operate in multi phase, any small difference in the offset voltage could have a difference in the output regulation voltage and could cause back feeding and damaging the circuitry.

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers, 

Refer below input related to PMIC selection

(+) AM625: AM625 compatible PMIC options - Processors forum - Processors - TI E2E support forums

AM625: AM625 compatible PMIC options

1. As stated in the datasheet, unfortunately TPS6521903 is only qualified for -40°C lower limit storage temperature. This will not meet the -55°C requirement. 

2. TPS6522005-EP is the extended performance device within the same family, this is qualified for -65°C lower limit.

Yes, this device can be compatible with AM625. TPS6522005-EP is a user-programmable device, so the settings come as a blank configuration.
The configuration can mirror that of the TPS6521903 configurations to be compatible with AM625.
NVM programming details can be found in this document: https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/SLVUCM5

(+) AM2431: Confirmation of PMICs available for use with the AM243x - Arm-based microcontrollers forum - Arm-based microcontrollers - TI E2E support forums

LP87334D, TPS65219, TPS65214 or a discrete power solution are all valid options to power AM243.  I'm transferring this E2E to the PMIC team so they can comment on the options available with a minimum order qty of 500 or less.  

Regarding ordering-related questions, you may have to reach out to your local sales representative, or the customer support team, as they handle this through a different channel than the E2E forum. 

We only offer the full tape & reel in the standard large T&R package qty (3000) for LP87334DRHDR and TPS65219.
However, you are able to order smaller quantities that will come as cut tape,
or you may opt for a custom reel, with an added reeling fee. 

Regards,

Sreenivasa 

Hi Board Designers,

Inputs related to load switch slew rate control, QOD and output cap.

https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tps22918.pdf

9.2.2.1 Input Capacitor (CIN)
To limit the voltage drop on the input supply caused by transient in-rush currents when the switch turns on into a
discharged load capacitor or short-circuit, a capacitor needs to be placed between VIN and GND. A 1 µF ceramic
capacitor, CIN, placed close to the pins, is usually sufficient. Higher values of CIN can be used to further reduce
the voltage drop during high-current application. When switching heavy loads, it is recommended to have an
input capacitor about 10 times higher than the output capacitor to avoid excessive voltage drop.

9.2.2.2 Output Capacitor (CL) (Optional)
Becuase of the integrated body diode in the MOSFET, a CIN greater than CL
is highly recommended. A CL
greater than CIN can cause VOUT to exceed VIN when the system supply is removed. This could result in current
flow through the body diode from VOUT to VIN. A CIN to CL
ratio of 10 to 1 is recommended for minimizing VIN
dip caused by inrush currents during startup.

8.3.2 Quick Output Discharge (QOD)

https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tps22965.pdf

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board Designers,

Inputs related to load switch implementation using FET

FET based switch implementation for peripheral supply control

General implementation 

Can cause reverse voltage to be applied during power cycle 

Recommended implementation 

Note: Verify the slew rate requirement for the connected peripherals 

 AM6442: Power sequencing of the TMDS64EVM circuit 

The purpose of the U102 OR-logic gate is to enable the pre-regulator after the 5V power source has a valid voltage level and to keep the pre-regulator enabled as long as the CORE voltage domain is withing the operating voltage range (even if the 5V PG goes low). This helps prevent an uncontrolled power-down

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board Designers,

Inputs related to load switch implementation

https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tps22965.pdf

10.1.2 Input Capacitor (Optional)
To limit the voltage drop on the input supply caused by transient inrush currents when the switch turns on into a
discharged load capacitor or short-circuit, a capacitor needs to be placed between VIN and GND. A 1-µF ceramic
capacitor, CIN, placed close to the pins, is usually sufficient. Higher values of CIN can be used to further reduce
the voltage drop during high current applications. When switching heavy loads, it is recommended to have an
input capacitor about 10 times higher than the output capacitor to avoid excessive voltage drop.

10.1.3 Output Capacitor (Optional)
Becuase of the integrated body diode in the NMOS switch, a CIN greater than CL is highly recommended. A CL
greater than CIN can cause VOUT to exceed VIN when the system supply is removed. This could result in current
flow through the body diode from VOUT to VIN. A CIN to CL ratio of 10 to 1 is recommended for minimizing VIN dip
caused by inrush currents during startup; however, a 10 to 1 ratio for capacitance is not required for proper
functionality of the device. A ratio smaller than 10 to 1 (such as 1 to 1) could cause slightly more VIN dip upon
turn-on due to inrush currents. This can be mitigated by increasing the capacitance on the CT pin for a longer
rise time (see the Adjustable Rise Time section).

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board Designers,

Inputs related to PMIC use case 

I have a question about PDN design for processor. Is it possible not to use  PMIC? Can I use a bunch of simple DCDCs instead? I just could like to simplify my design.

Hi Board Designers,

PMIC LDO input or output connection when not used 

Regards,

Sreenivasa 

Hi Board Designers,

Information related to delay between supplies:

(+) [FAQ] AM625: what is the specific delay time requirement between the different power rail? - Processors forum - Processors - TI E2E support forums

[FAQ] AM625: what is the specific delay time requirement between the different power rail?

We do not have any time specified between 2 supplies except that the previous supply needs to be ramped and stable before the start of the next supply ramp.
No specific timing requirements. The sequence is required only to prevent potential differences.

The delay between these two power rails ramping down is not important. The device has a power-up and power-down sequence requirement to ensure potential differences between power rails.

The primary concern is the potential difference between VDD_CORE and VDDR_CORE, where VDDR_CORE must never be greater than the potential applied to VDD_CORE + 0.18V during power-up or power-down.

(+) AM6422: Power up / Down sequencing - Processors forum - Processors - TI E2E support forums

There is only one firm requirement for AM64x power-down. See note 5 associated with the power-down sequence. 

The potential applied to VDDR_CORE must never be greater than the potential applied to VDD_CORE + 0.18V during power-up or power-down. This requires VDD_CORE to ramp up before and ramp down after VDDR_CORE when VDD_CORE is operating at 0.75V. VDD_CORE does not have any ramp requirements beyond the one defined for VDDR_CORE. VDD_CORE and VDDR_CORE are expected to be powered by the same source so they ramp together when VDD_CORE is operating at 0.85V.

(+) AM6548: Confirmation on slew rate - Processors forum - Processors - TI E2E support forums

The max power supply slew rates requirement defined in the datasheet only applies when the power rails are ramping up. The ESD circuits implemented on the power rails may false trigger, clamping the power rails to VSS if the power rails ramp too fast.

Are there any requirements on the slew rate for fall times?

No.

We are basically allowing the IO supply to delay their turn-off until the last core supply is turned off. The previous power-down diagram showed the IO supplies being turned off by the time VDD_CORE was turned off. This is still the preferred sequence, if possible, to help prevent the IOs from doing unpredictable things during power-down since logic in the core domain controls the IO functions. However, we found this was difficult to implement and decided the internal circuits that force the IOs to a known state until VDD_CORE ramps-up should perform a similar task during power down when VDD_CORE is lost before the IO supply. We do not want customers leaving IO supplies powered for long periods of time after the VDD_CORE is turned off, so we decided to extend each IO supply turn off until the last core rail is turned off as way to limit the time IO are turned on after VDD_CORE is turned off.    

It appears you are showing an uncontrolled power-down sequence where all supplies are turned off at the same time, which is consistent with the new power-down diagram as long as you ensure the potential applied to VDDR_CORE is never greater than the potential applied to VDD_CORE + 0.18V during power-up or power-down. This is the only absolute voltage difference that must be managed during power-down.

All power rails must be turned off and decay below 300mV before initiating a new power-up sequence anytime a power rail drops below the minimum value defined in Recommended Operating Conditions. The only exception is when entering/exiting Partial IO low power mode with VDDSHV_CANUART and VDD_CANUART sourced from an always on power source. For this use case the VDDSHV_CANUART and VDD_CANUART power rails are allowed to remain on.

Regarding the AM275 Power-Down Sequence

Two questions regarding power-off of the AM275.

 (1) In the recommended power-down sequence for the AM275, the documentation specifies that the relationship between VDD_CORE (Waveform H) and MCU_PORz (Waveform J) should be J -> H. However, if the sequence operates as H -> J, what behavior can be observed?

(2) If the answer to (1) is that “a malfunction may occur,” what types of malfunctions are possible?

The question is what issue could be expected when shutdown sequence is not followed?

The power supplies are expected to be within ROC when MCU_POrz is high. Operating the processor out of ROC is not recommended.

MCU_PORz must be pulled low before any of the SoC voltage domains drop below the MIN limit of the operating range. This reset signal must go from high to low before the power down sequence starts or at the beginning of the power-down sequence.

We do not specify the expected SoC behavior under conditions that do not meet the spec.   

Information related to supply sequence:

(+) AM623: Reference Design Questions - Processors forum - Processors - TI E2E support forums

In this power up sequence, the first power supply to come up is the 3.3V from the power switch on top (TPS22965). In the reference design, this 3.3V is used to power peripherals on the dev board which may apply a signal or pull-up GPIO pins on the AM623 before the rest of the power supplies are up. would this cause an issue? should we separate the 3.3V power supply to a 3.3v switched to power peripherals (including the Ethernet PHYs) after VDD_CORE is stable?

Most of the processor IOs are not fail-safe. As noted in our design collateral, we recommend using the same regulator for the IO supply of the SoC (i.e VDDSHVx) and the IO supply of the external peripheral. This will help prevent having a voltage on a digital pin while its corresponding IO supply is not powered. Regarding your question about the clock buffer, please follow our EVM implementation. 

• Hardware design guidelines: https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/sprad05
• Design checklist: https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/sprado3

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers,

Inputs related to supply variation within the ROC and the effect.

Is there a concern if the supply rails are within the ROC but Is there a concern if the supply rails are within the ROC but continuously changing with the ROC range on the processor operation

 I think the question is if the potential applied to our power rails can move between the ROC min/max limits (supply noise) without causing any issues.
We have typically allowed that on our digital power rails, but not analog power rails. 

We have been trying to address this by telling customers they can use switch-mode power supplies for digital power rials, but they are expected to use a low-noise LDO to power analog power rails.

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers,

Inputs related to LDO1 in bypass mode

If the plan is to supply the TPS6522053 PMIC with a 5V pre-reg and LDO1 is not used in this application, then I recommend pulling the VSEL_SD pin low with an external pull-down resistor. The reason is because LDO1 is configured as bypass and requires a 3.3V input supply when VSEL_SD is pulled high.

Regards,

Sreenivasa 

Hi Board designers,

Inputs related to shunt connected at the PMIC buck outputs for isolation or current measurement:

Wondering if we have any general guidance on when to use a 4-terminal vs a 2-terminal resistor for current sensing. Is there a particular shunt resistance, accuracy spec, or current level (or some combination of those things) where we'd typically recommend using 4-terminal over 2-terminal? They are aware this is heavily dependent on their manufacturing environment and materials, they're just wondering if you have any general guidance you can share from your experience.

The answer to your question is in some ways all of the various things you have mentioned, but all at the end of the day go to accuracy of the measurement. Check out this app note from Thin-Film. In this, they show the tradeoffs for power generated at various resistance levels, as well as the impact of manufacturing on these resistors for a given resistance level (many customers will drop the sense voltage generated by reducing the resistance to meet their power budgets). However, there isn't really a hard line in the sand of "if you need this amount of accuracy you should go 4-terminal." It all comes down to the individual needs of the customer system.

My typical rule of thumb is that I recommend 4 terminal resistors once the customer begins seeking micro-ohm levels of accuracy for the shunt, so sub-1mohm. While you can achieve very good performance even with 2-terminal resistors provided they are laid out well with solid Kelvin connections, 4-terminal resistors ensure the layout is removing non-idealities such as lead resistance from the measurement when you begin chasing these very small resistance levels. Again, this is my own personal rule of thumb, and the customer can solve the problem in other ways here. 

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers,

Inputs related to 5V connected as PMIC input:

They should be able to use 5V pre-reg. In this scenario, the external 3.3V power-switch in our EVM is replaced with a 3.3V DCDC. My other recommendation is to tie the VSEL_SD pin low with an external pull-down resistor if LDO1 is not used.

Power dissipation will be higher but this should be expected when increasing the pre-reg voltage. If customer wants to estimate the expected power dissipation, they can use the following calculator: https://www.ti.com/tool/download/SLVRBL7

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers,

Inputs related to using LDO1 as VPP supply

I_max = 400 mA
Fast load transient repsonse

Enable/disable via GPIO

"

In the SoC datasheet you can find the following:

In the PMIC datasheet:

 is there any reason not to use the PMIC but instead an external LDO?

There are separate options to enable/disable and switch the voltage. The enable would be done via register only as far as I see.

The LDOs from the TPS65219 PMIC cannot be used to supply the SoC VPP rail. Here are some of the reasons:

• LDOs on this PMIC do not have a dedicated enable pin.
• The "Standby" state on this PMIC cannot be used to enable rails (it is only used to disable rails)
• The VSEL pin cannot be configured to enable/disable regulators. 

Regards,

Sreenivasa

Hi Board designers,

Using hall sensor for supply rail measurement

TMCS1108 3% Functional Isolation Hall-Effect Current Sensor With ±100-V Working Voltage

https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tmcs1108.pdf

Regards,

Sreenivasa