Does the pandaboard remain hot after Ubuntu shutdown?

[dasankir]

Hi all,

We are making some thermal test with the Padaboard, and it seems ours
stay warm after shutting down. We have to unplug the power supply to
see it cooling to room temperature.

Here are the posts about the tests:

http://therandomlab.blogspot.com/2011/03/pandaboard-is-hot.html

http://therandomlab.blogspot.com/2011/04/pandaboard-thermographyc-analysis.html

Has anyone experienced the same?


Regards,

David.

[haunma]

Could you put a splice into your 5V power cable and measure the "off"
current with an ammeter? Are we talking milliwatts or watts?

[da...@therandomlab.com]

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kYiPtgCCoo

[prpplague]

the ubuntu showdown feature only prepares the OS for shutdown and
instructs the CPU reach a level for power off, however it does not
currently instruct the TWL6030 to power down. you can do a test by
adding a button to pin 12 of the J6 expansion header and a ground pin
such as pin 7 or 8 of J6. if you ground pin 12 for approximately 10
seconds, the TWL6030 will force a power off, in the same manner that
most ATX power supply based PC will respond to the power button.

Dave

[dasankir]

Good info!

That means unplugging the board after shut down is esential for
anybody planning to run the board from batteries, and also to extend
the life of the board/processor.

Will the complete power off of the Pandaboard be ever available with
ubuntu? Is there any plan to make it work from the OS?

[prpplague]

dasankir,


1) PandaBoard was never designed to be run from batteries. the primary
purpose of the PandaBoard is a software development platform for
OMAP4430 done from the desktop environment.

2) you will need to ask the ubuntu developers about what they intend
on supporting.

3) complete power off is supported in the mainline kernel and also in
the current L24.x omapzoom trees.

Dave

[haunma]

Dave (and the Pandaboard team),

I really appreciate the help you've given me (and others) on this
forum, so please don't take this the wrong way, but...

Every time I read one of these declarations to the effect that
"Pandaboard is intended for such and such, not that other thing you
have in mind for it", it irks me. Isn't it in the community's best
interest to encourage Pandaboard adoption by as many folks as
possible? Both commercial enterprises and basement hobbyists? Or are
hobbyists not important anymore? Your Black Market contest would seem
to disprove that, as (if I'm not mistaken) none of the winners
represent for-profit enterprises.

What is it about the Pandaboard, exactly, that makes it less suitable
than the Beagleboard for certain classes of projects? As far as I can
tell, PB doesn't lack anything the Beagleboard has, except unlike
OMAP3, not just anyone can go out and buy OMAP4 chips for their own
hardware. But aren't most of the hardware hackers on Beagleboard just
hobbyist types anyway? This distinction will certainly be lost on
them. What they do care about is for Pandaboard to succeed and have
good longevity.

I for one would really like to see this become the Beagleboard
successor (until we have a <animal>Board OMAP5) and achieve comparable
popularity. Or merge with that project. I fail to see why you are
going to such pains to tell people that Beagleboard is for one thing,
and Pandaboard is for another.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Oh, and thanks for the free Pandaboard! It arrived yesterday. Can't
wait to get started with it!

Mark

[Jayabharath Goluguri]

Hello Mark,

On Apr 8, 12:27 pm, haunma <hau...@keteu.org> wrote:

>
> Every time I read one of these declarations to the effect that
> "Pandaboard is intended for such and such, not that other thing you
> have in mind for it", it irks me.

Dave message was in-regards to clarifying design decision that we made
on the PandaBoard HW - which dint include make it run from batteries.

> Isn't it in the community's best
> interest to encourage Pandaboard adoption by as many folks as
> possible?  Both commercial enterprises and basement hobbyists?  Or are
> hobbyists not important anymore?  Your Black Market contest would seem
> to disprove that, as (if I'm not mistaken) none of the winners
> represent for-profit enterprises.

Yes indeed. That is exactly the reason why we are adding more
distributors to make the platform more broadly available, encouraging
hobby projects (like you mentioned in the last black market event).

>
> What is it about the Pandaboard, exactly, that makes it less suitable
> than the Beagleboard for certain classes of projects?  As far as I can
> tell, PB doesn't lack anything the Beagleboard has, except unlike
> OMAP3, not just anyone can go out and buy OMAP4 chips for their own
> hardware.  But aren't most of the hardware hackers on Beagleboard just
> hobbyist types anyway?  This distinction will certainly be lost on
> them.  What they do care about is for Pandaboard to succeed and have
> good longevity.

The main difference with a PandaBoard is that the OMAP silicon,
Phoenix power & audio IC's are NOT available for purchase by anyone.
In addition TI does not offer support to board market product
developers via e2e.ti.com.
However, In the case of beagleboard the AMxxx or OMAP35x part are
available for purchase through distribution & are supported via TI's
e2e forums

The effect of this is that: it prevents you from developing end
product using the OMAP4 PandaBoard. That is exactly the reason why we
term PandaBoard as a mobile software development platform (and not a
product development vehicle like Beagle board and other <animal>
boards). However, this does NOT limit hobbyist from using PandaBoard
i.e., we love the and care about them :)

There is good news on the OMAP4430 product development front with the
announcement from PhyTechon the new Industrial grade SoM check out :
* http://www.phytec.com/products/som/Cortex-A8-A9/phyCORE-OMAP4430.html

So, when you see we word "PandaBoard is for this and not for that.."
we are trying to remind you & clarify of some of the constraints so
that you dont go down a wrong path, invest time with the wrong
expectation and eventually be disappointed.

>
> I for one would really like to see this become the Beagleboard
> successor (until we have a <animal>Board OMAP5) and achieve comparable
> popularity.  Or merge with that project.  I fail to see why you are
> going to such pains to tell people that Beagleboard is for one thing,
> and Pandaboard is for another.
>
> Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Hopefully above make things a bit more clear. Dont hesitate to ask any
other pressing questions - the point is to be open as much as we can &
forth right with the information.

>
> Oh, and thanks for the free Pandaboard!  It arrived yesterday.  Can't
> wait to get started with it!

Great - have fun hacking it!


--Jayabharath

[haunma]

On Apr 8, 11:35 am, Jayabharath Goluguri <jayabhar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dave message was in-regards to clarifying design decision that we made
> on the PandaBoard HW - which dint include make it run from batteries.

Fair enough, and I wasn't trying to pick on Dave specifically; this is
something that's been rattling in my head for a while.

I do feel the "it's not designed for that" answer gets used pretty
often here, in some cases when friendly encouragement might have been
the better response. (See e.g. the threads on the integrated DSP.)
Maybe it's a culture clash; you guys don't want to encourage uses that
you can't properly support (the "technical support" culture), and that
is understandable. But the open-hardware and hobbyist types (the
"hacker" culture) would rather have a stronger focus on what is
possible, vs. what is intended.

> The main difference with a PandaBoard is that the OMAP silicon,
> Phoenix power & audio IC's are NOT available for purchase by anyone.

[...]

> The effect of this is that: it prevents you from developing end
> product using the OMAP4 PandaBoard.

Right, so, basically what I thought.

I wonder what the commercial/noncommercial user ratio is for the
Beagleboard? Pretty low, I would guess. And for those hobbyists,
this distinction (you can't develop a product with PB) isn't going to
matter. It's too bad we couldn't have leveraged the Beagleboard
"brand" and called this OMAP4 board the "Beagleboard4" or something
like that, with appropriate caveats. I worry that there are a bunch
of potential BB users out there who aren't sure about this whole PB
thing, go look at the FAQ, and then decide the BB is a better long-
term bet for their projects.

Thanks,

Mark

[Jayabharath, Goluguri]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 3:20 PM, haunma <hau...@keteu.org> wrote:

I do feel the "it's not designed for that" answer gets used pretty
often here, in some cases when friendly encouragement might have been
the better response.  (See e.g. the threads on the integrated DSP.)
Maybe it's a culture clash; you guys don't want to encourage uses that
you can't properly support (the "technical support" culture), and that
is understandable.  But the open-hardware and hobbyist types (the
"hacker" culture) would rather have a stronger focus on what is
possible, vs. what is intended.

Yes - you are right.. I guess we need to be a little more careful on how we word our emails - the intent is indeed to enourage what's possible sometime our responses seem to unintentionally discourage that.

 

> The main difference with a PandaBoard is that the OMAP silicon,
> Phoenix power & audio IC's are NOT available for purchase by anyone.
[...]
> The effect of this is that: it prevents you from developing end
> product using the OMAP4 PandaBoard.

Right, so, basically what I thought.

I wonder what the commercial/noncommercial user ratio is for the
Beagleboard?  Pretty low, I would guess.  And for those hobbyists,
this distinction (you can't develop a product with PB) isn't going to
matter.  

The the recent survey we did in the PandaBoard community we found that about 70% respondents are interested in going GNU/Linux software development,

50% have a hobbyist project in mind, 30% intend to develop a end product . Not sure how this racks up with Beagleboard audience.

--Jayabharath 

[dasankir]

@dave
I understand, thank you for the info!
Anyway, I think is good that people knows they shouldn't leave the
board connected after Ubuntu's shut down.

@haunma
Good point

@Jayabharath Goluguri
Fair enough

> There is good news on the OMAP4430 product development front with the
> announcement from PhyTechon the new Industrial grade SoM check out :
> * http://www.phytec.com/products/som/Cortex-A8-A9/phyCORE-OMAP4430.html

I've requested a quote and some info about oitential battery power
management. Bet it'll be expensive.
There is the Gumstix too.

I intend to experiment with robotics. May try to get some support from
similar projects.
The stuff about the thermographyc analysis may end on publishing paper
toghether with the Institute of Energetic Engineering of my University
(U. Politécnica de Valencia). I'm preparing a rough CPU usage monitor/
selector to compare the thermal changes with the CPU usage and the
overall power consumption. I wonder if end user product applications
of the omap4 are very restrictive with computing power to keep
temperature at acceptable levels (can't imagine holding a device that
is 60-80 degrees Celsius. That would mean the real average computing
power is much less that the maximum.
As we are doing the analysis next week, if there is some wish or
suggestion to get advantage of the thermal camera session.

Community developing is great!

Thank you all,

David.