From: Bob E. <sna...@gm...> - 2007-11-15 18:25:38
|
All: I have a connex400xm, netMMC, and console-hw. I did some power measurements and found that this configuration consumes 0.304mA @ 4.7V which means it is consuming 1.4W. Are there any methods to lower this draw? Thanks in advance Bob |
From: <clm...@ma...> - 2007-11-15 19:34:16
|
So I have a package that in the official list that I simply want to yank some things out of the zip archive that gets put into the buildroot image (so it'll fit on the 16MB flash). I simply want to replace the zip being built in the package and included by the build system with my own stripped down version. I don't see a "packaging" or "create-filesystem" target in the makefile, and instead of digging around hacking for hours I thought I'd ask if someone had a quick hack for this. (already tried doing a make and then replacing the file and doing make again, but the zip is recreated so the makefile isn't set up to detect changes and only conditionally re-create the needed files :( ) Thanks, Colin |
From: Dave H. <dhy...@gm...> - 2007-11-15 20:16:48
|
Hi Colin, On Nov 15, 2007 11:34 AM, <clm...@ma...> wrote: > So I have a package that in the official list that I simply want to > yank some things out of the zip archive that gets put into the > buildroot image (so it'll fit on the 16MB flash). > > I simply want to replace the zip being built in the package and > included by the build system with my own stripped down version. I > don't see a "packaging" or "create-filesystem" target in the > makefile, and instead of digging around hacking for hours I thought > I'd ask if someone had a quick hack for this. There is a makefile for each package (in the appropriate packages subdirectory). This package normally has a line like: ifeq ($(strip $(BR2_PACKAGE_BOA)),y) TARGETS+=boa endif and the boa target normally depends on the files in the $(TARGET_DIR) and these files normally depend on the files from the appropriate subdirectory in buildroot_arm_nofpu -- Dave Hylands Vancouver, BC, Canada http://www.DaveHylands.com/ |
From: thaGod <th...@gm...> - 2007-11-16 04:11:00
|
You want to lower a 400MHz system to *under* 1.4W? I can see the allure, but I doubt you'll be able to extract much regardless of what you do. You don't seem to have any power hungry circuits in your setup. 300mA is not bad even for a system with just a PIC and LED backlighting. Perhaps if you really wanted it bad you could explore taking over some functions with unused GPIO and get rid of the extra expansion boards... but I think this is a longshot. Your only chance is to eliminate expansion boards and make better use of what you can't get rid of. Buy a bigger battery!! =) Erick Bob Evans-3 wrote: > > All: > > I have a connex400xm, netMMC, and console-hw. I did some power > measurements and found that this configuration consumes 0.304mA @ 4.7V > which means it is consuming 1.4W. Are there any methods to lower this > draw? > > Thanks in advance > > Bob > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Methods-for-lowering-power-consumption-tf4816277.html#a13786948 Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Michael K. <mfk...@gm...> - 2007-11-16 04:48:27
|
On Nov 15, 2007 8:11 PM, thaGod <th...@gm...> wrote: > > You want to lower a 400MHz system to *under* 1.4W? There are a few of us who very much desire < 1W systems. Many remotely deployed data-logging systems used in oceanographic research have very tight power constraints. I have found that a 400mhz Verdex + netCF board with the ethernet interface disabled draws about 55mA @ 5v with the CPU idle. Reading and writing to the CF card spikes the current up to 80-100mA. These aren't bad numbers but I would like to do even better. I have been playing with the 'standby' and 'suspend to RAM' modes. Standby dropped the current to 25-30mA but suspend-to-RAM actually *increased* the current to > 60mA -- clearly there is something wrong here. For my current project, 55mA at idle easily meets the requirements but for a potential future project it would be nice to be able to "sleep" the system at < 10mA and wakeup in 1-2 seconds. --Mike > > I can see the allure, but I doubt you'll be able to extract much regardless > of what you do. You don't seem to have any power hungry circuits in your > setup. 300mA is not bad even for a system with just a PIC and LED > backlighting. > > Perhaps if you really wanted it bad you could explore taking over some > functions with unused GPIO and get rid of the extra expansion boards... but > I think this is a longshot. Your only chance is to eliminate expansion > boards and make better use of what you can't get rid of. Buy a bigger > battery!! =) > > Erick > > > Bob Evans-3 wrote: > > > > All: > > > > I have a connex400xm, netMMC, and console-hw. I did some power > > measurements and found that this configuration consumes 0.304mA @ 4.7V > > which means it is consuming 1.4W. Are there any methods to lower this > > draw? > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > Bob > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > gumstix-users mailing list > > gum...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Methods-for-lowering-power-consumption-tf4816277.html#a13786948 > Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Bill G. <bg...@bi...> - 2007-11-16 05:02:49
|
Michael Kenney wrote: > On Nov 15, 2007 8:11 PM, thaGod <th...@gm...> wrote: > >> You want to lower a 400MHz system to *under* 1.4W? >> > > There are a few of us who very much desire < 1W systems. Many > remotely deployed data-logging systems used in oceanographic research > have very tight power constraints. > > I have found that a 400mhz Verdex + netCF board with the ethernet > interface disabled draws about 55mA @ 5v with the CPU idle. Reading > and writing to the CF card spikes the current up to 80-100mA. These > aren't bad numbers but I would like to do even better. I have been > playing with the 'standby' and 'suspend to RAM' modes. Standby > dropped the current to 25-30mA but suspend-to-RAM actually *increased* > the current to > 60mA -- clearly there is something wrong here. > Make sure you turn off all unused peripheral clocks. And when you're suspended, you can often slow down the clock to your SDRAM too. The clocked circuits in a microprocessor and peripherals are what eat much of the power in a CMOS system. Turn off or slow down those clocks, and you'll see lower power consumption. Maybe your SDRAM's self-refresh mode isn't very power-friendly, and that's why your suspend-to-RAM numbers are so bad? b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bg...@bi... |
From: Arlen R. <ar...@gm...> - 2007-11-16 18:59:07
|
Not knowing exactly what your application is may or may not make this relevant, but here goes anyway... If you really need low power consumption and fast recovery from sleep mode you are probably better off using a purpose built microcontroller circuit that has just the functionality that you want. You can use the gumstix to get the prototype working and be certain that all the features and requirements are well understood, then port the design to a processor that is just fast enough to fit the requirements and uses sleep modes to further extend the battery life. You may want to look at the Texas Instruments MSP430 line of processors for example. Hope this helps, -Arlen Raasch On Nov 16, 2007 12:02 AM, Bill Gatliff <bg...@bi...> wrote: > Michael Kenney wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2007 8:11 PM, thaGod <th...@gm...> wrote: > > > >> You want to lower a 400MHz system to *under* 1.4W? > >> > > > > There are a few of us who very much desire < 1W systems. Many > > remotely deployed data-logging systems used in oceanographic research > > have very tight power constraints. > > > > I have found that a 400mhz Verdex + netCF board with the ethernet > > interface disabled draws about 55mA @ 5v with the CPU idle. Reading > > and writing to the CF card spikes the current up to 80-100mA. These > > aren't bad numbers but I would like to do even better. I have been > > playing with the 'standby' and 'suspend to RAM' modes. Standby > > dropped the current to 25-30mA but suspend-to-RAM actually *increased* > > the current to > 60mA -- clearly there is something wrong here. > > > > Make sure you turn off all unused peripheral clocks. And when you're > suspended, you can often slow down the clock to your SDRAM too. The > clocked circuits in a microprocessor and peripherals are what eat much > of the power in a CMOS system. Turn off or slow down those clocks, and > you'll see lower power consumption. > > Maybe your SDRAM's self-refresh mode isn't very power-friendly, and > that's why your suspend-to-RAM numbers are so bad? > > > b.g. > > -- > Bill Gatliff > bg...@bi... > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Michael K. <mfk...@gm...> - 2007-11-18 05:20:55
|
Arlen, On Nov 16, 2007 10:59 AM, Arlen Raasch <ar...@gm...> wrote: > Not knowing exactly what your application is may or may not make this > relevant, but here goes anyway... > > If you really need low power consumption and fast recovery from sleep > mode you are probably better off using a purpose built microcontroller > circuit that has just the functionality that you want. Yes, I am aware of the various low-power microcontrollers that are on the market and have used a number of them. For this particular application, however, running a full-blown OS has many advantages -- hence the gumstix. In reality, the Verdex's idle power consumption is quite competitive with the Onset TT8 (Motorola 68332 based board) that we have been using for 10+ years. The only real sticking point is "sleep mode". --Mike |
From: Shelby R. <nov...@gm...> - 2007-11-18 06:35:58
|
I too am very interested in this ultra lower power sleep mode, is the support even there though in Linux? If not, I'd be willing (and hopefully others) to pay a Linux consultant to port in some ultra low power-helping code :) On Nov 18, 2007 12:21 AM, Michael Kenney <mfk...@gm...> wrote: > Arlen, > > On Nov 16, 2007 10:59 AM, Arlen Raasch <ar...@gm...> wrote: > > Not knowing exactly what your application is may or may not make this > > relevant, but here goes anyway... > > > > If you really need low power consumption and fast recovery from sleep > > mode you are probably better off using a purpose built microcontroller > > circuit that has just the functionality that you want. > > Yes, I am aware of the various low-power microcontrollers that are on > the market and have used a number of them. For this particular > application, however, running a full-blown OS has many advantages -- > hence the gumstix. > > In reality, the Verdex's idle power consumption is quite competitive > with the Onset TT8 (Motorola 68332 based board) that we have been > using for 10+ years. The only real sticking point is "sleep mode". > > --Mike > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Shelby R. <nov...@gm...> - 2007-11-18 06:37:24
|
Has anybody tried (or it even possible) clocking the cpu WAY back? (such as 66mhz or something) On Nov 18, 2007 1:36 AM, Shelby Reed <nov...@gm...> wrote: > I too am very interested in this ultra lower power sleep mode, is the > support even there though in Linux? If not, I'd be willing (and hopefully > others) to pay a Linux consultant to port in some ultra low power-helping > code :) > > > On Nov 18, 2007 12:21 AM, Michael Kenney <mfk...@gm...> wrote: > > > Arlen, > > > > On Nov 16, 2007 10:59 AM, Arlen Raasch <ar...@gm...> wrote: > > > Not knowing exactly what your application is may or may not make this > > > relevant, but here goes anyway... > > > > > > If you really need low power consumption and fast recovery from sleep > > > mode you are probably better off using a purpose built microcontroller > > > circuit that has just the functionality that you want. > > > > Yes, I am aware of the various low-power microcontrollers that are on > > the market and have used a number of them. For this particular > > application, however, running a full-blown OS has many advantages -- > > hence the gumstix. > > > > In reality, the Verdex's idle power consumption is quite competitive > > with the Onset TT8 (Motorola 68332 based board) that we have been > > using for 10+ years. The only real sticking point is "sleep mode". > > > > --Mike > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > > _______________________________________________ > > gumstix-users mailing list > > gum...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > > > > |
From: Michael K. <mfk...@gm...> - 2007-11-18 18:16:42
|
Shelby, On Nov 17, 2007 10:37 PM, Shelby Reed <nov...@gm...> wrote: > Has anybody tried (or it even possible) clocking the cpu WAY back? (such as > 66mhz or something) If you enable frequency scaling in the kernel (CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=y, CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE=y) you can clock the CPU down to 100mhz. --Mike |
From: Alexandre P. N. <ale...@gm...> - 2007-11-22 19:44:35
|
Michael Kenney escreveu: > On Nov 15, 2007 8:11 PM, thaGod <th...@gm...> wrote: > >> You want to lower a 400MHz system to *under* 1.4W? >> > > There are a few of us who very much desire < 1W systems. Many > remotely deployed data-logging systems used in oceanographic research > have very tight power constraints. > > I have found that a 400mhz Verdex + netCF board with the ethernet > interface disabled draws about 55mA @ 5v with the CPU idle. Reading > and writing to the CF card spikes the current up to 80-100mA. These > aren't bad numbers but I would like to do even better. I have been > playing with the 'standby' and 'suspend to RAM' modes. Standby > dropped the current to 25-30mA but suspend-to-RAM actually *increased* > the current to > 60mA -- clearly there is something wrong here. > > As far as I can recall, the pxa series has a register which sets all the GPIOs to some mode and state when entering the deep sleep mode. If that is not set right, it could be that some pins physically tied to the ground or to vcc would get the opposite logical setting during idle time, which would make then power hogs. The exact setting is probably a default, generic one, which is not tuned from the linux kernel drivers, it has to be provided by the implementation (i.e. the gumstix patches). A single GPIO in a situation like that could lead to some considerable power consuption. Even if a pin in special function gets in tristate it could lead to external hardware to misbehave (i.e. awake) and consume power. That's one possibility to account for, certainly there are others. > For my current project, 55mA at idle easily meets the requirements but > for a potential future project it would be nice to be able to "sleep" > the system at < 10mA and wakeup in 1-2 seconds. > Depending on the verdex board design, I would risk saying that it's possible to achieve that even without deep sleep, just by lowering the cpu and memory clocks and disabling both unneeded pxa's internal periferals and external ones. There's a power management µc on the board, it may have some interesting features too. On the connex series, power management is much less capable; with very low voltage (3.7v I think) and a 100mhz clock, I could get around 30ma when idle. The cpufreq gives trouble on the pxa 255, but that's ok on the verdex. |
From: Yuvraj A. <yu...@uc...> - 2007-11-18 23:36:11
|
I have a connex 200-xm and I would also like to enable CPU/frequency scaling. Have you been able to modify the CPU frequency manually and actually measure the power consumption change? What are the commands you use to do this? I'd also like to clock down my connex to 100Mhz. (my current build is version 1513 on a connex-200xm). My current *running* kernel(2.6.21gum) .config for the CPU frequency scaling looks like the following... CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_TABLE=y # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEBUG is not set CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT_DETAILS=y # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE is not set CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE=y # CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND is not set CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=m CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE=m CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE=y CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=m CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE=m CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_PXA=y Where and how do you change the CPU frequency ? Is there also a way to change the CPU voltage ? For lower operating CPU frequencies the voltage can also be reduced to save even more power I imagine ... Thanks! Yuvraj -----Original Message----- From: gum...@li... [mailto:gum...@li...] On Behalf Of Michael Kenney Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:17 AM To: General mailing list for gumstix users. Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] Methods for lowering power consumption Shelby, On Nov 17, 2007 10:37 PM, Shelby Reed <nov...@gm...> wrote: > Has anybody tried (or it even possible) clocking the cpu WAY back? (such as > 66mhz or something) If you enable frequency scaling in the kernel (CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=y, CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE=y) you can clock the CPU down to 100mhz. --Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ gumstix-users mailing list gum...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: Michael K. <mfk...@gm...> - 2007-11-19 04:32:53
|
Yuvraj, On Nov 18, 2007 3:35 PM, Yuvraj Agarwal <yu...@uc...> wrote: > I have a connex 200-xm and I would also like to enable CPU/frequency > scaling. Have you been able to > modify the CPU frequency manually and actually measure the power consumption > change? What are the commands you > use to do this? I'd also like to clock down my connex to 100Mhz. (my current > build is version 1513 > on a connex-200xm). There is a sysfs interface to control the CPU frequency from user-space. You will find the interface at: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq For details on controlling the frequency, see the file Documentation/cpu-freq/user-guide.txt in the Linux kernel source tree. I don't think you can control the CPU voltage on the gumstix boards... --Mike |