• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 102 subscribers
  • Views 1394 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

OMAP-L132: Question regarding compatibility of patch as described in Errata Advisory 2.3.24 (Boot ECC Boot Failure)

Christopher Olofsson5
Prodigy 40 points
Part Number: OMAP-L132
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: OMAPL138, OMAP-L138

Hi Forum

As we have both Revision B and E (2.1 and 2.3) of the OMAP-L132 and our desire is to be able to use the same software releases for both, there is a question regarding applying the described patch in Advisory 2.3.24 (Boost ECC Data Error caused by NAND Boot Failure) as to whether that patch is safely applicable to both revisions?

The reason why this question arises here is that the failure (and thus a need for the patch) so far has only been discovered with Revision E and _NOT_ with Revision B.

The question is: Can we safely apply the AISGEN.exe version 1.11 and later that integrates the ECC Correct function to software running also on Revision B? Will this work the same? 

An optional bonus follow up answer would be to address why there is a (seemingly?) difference between Rev B and Rev E in this regard.

Thanks in advance

Best regards,

Christopher Olofsson, Music Group Innovation Sweden.

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 161600 points
    Hi,

    I've notified the factory team. Feedback will be posted here.

    Best Regards,
    Yordan
  • 0
    TI__Guru** 114410 points
    The patch can be safely be applied to Rev B and E as both revision have the same ROM boot loader version(D800K008). Because of the nature of the failure relates to when errors occur in the ECC region of the NAND flash which can`t be predicted, it is possible to see failures on different versions at different times but it is recommended to apply them to both revisions as there is a possibility over the life time of your product that this error may occur in the spare area of the NAND and the ROM bootloader could fail to boot.

    If you apply the patch it will work the same on RevB and Rev E for OMAPL132. The patch behaves a little differently for PG 2.0 version (ROM version D800K006) on the superset OMAPL138 part due to the difference in nature and location of the ROM symbols but that doesn`t apply to OMAPL132 parts which didn`t support that ROM version.

    I hope this answers your bonus question as well.

    Regards,
    Rahul
  • 0 in reply to Rahul Prabhu
    Prodigy 40 points
    Thank you for your clarification.
    So far we have only seen the problem with Rev E exclusively, which still remains a bit of a mystery if the likelihood is the same between them.

    Best regards,
    Christopher
  • 0 in reply to Christopher Olofsson5
    Prodigy 40 points
    Hello again.
    Unfortunately there was a mixup of part numbers internally here (verbally) and given that the same Errata Advisory applies to both, this was not caught earlier. What we have been seeing actually is a difference between OMAP-L138 Rev B and Rev E. Sorry for the confusion!
    So it's actually not the L132, but instead the L138 we are targeting with this patch.

    Would this change anything in your reply regarding compatibility or cause of experienced difference between the two revisions?

    Thanks in advance and sorry again for the confusion.
    Best regards,
    Christopher
  • 0 in reply to Christopher Olofsson5
    TI__Guru* 78325 points
    Hi Christopher
    Rahul's response is equally applicable to OMAPL138 rev B and rev E. There is no difference in silicon with respect to this advisory , so the likelihood of this exists on both silicon.
    If you are seeing any variability it is likely device to device (including your flash) and potential usage of the nand flash and is nothing to do with the OMAPL138 silicon revs.

    Regards
    Mukul
  • 0 in reply to Mukul Bhatnagar
    Prodigy 40 points
    Thank you for your reply.
    It's good to hear that there is no known difference between the two revisions, as this will help us narrow down the problem.
    However, with the patch in place the boot issue should be circumvented so perhaps no further investigation will be necessary.

    Best regards,
    Christopher.
  • 0 in reply to Christopher Olofsson5
    TI__Guru* 78325 points
    Correct, the main difference between rev 2.1 vs 2.3 is the USB advisory fix going from 2.1 to 2.3

    Advisory 2.1.21 —USB0 PLL Mean Frequency Can Drift Across Large Temperature Swings .