1 Reply Latest reply on Dec 14, 2020 2:22 PM by ctammann

    Measured junction temperatures are much higher than what Vivado produces in the Report Power tool.

    mike.mandeville

      We are getting about 85C from the XADC temp reading on the device and have an estimated temp of 53C from Vivado. See below readings from one of the boards and the Vivado report:

       

      PL rails:

        VCC INT (1.0 V)  VCC AUX (1.8 V)  VCC bRAM (1.0 V)

        ---------------  --------------- ----------------

         now: 0.963 V     now: 1.789 V     now: 0.967 V

         max: 0.984 V     max: 1.812 V     max: 0.979 V

         min: 0.948 V     min: 1.783 V     min: 0.962 V

       

      PS rails:

        VCC INT (1.0 V)  VCC AUX (1.8 V)  VCC DDR (1.5 V)

        ---------------  --------------- ---------------

         now: 0.967 V     now: 1.789 V     now: 1.480 V

         max: 0.988 V     max: 1.813 V     max: 1.488 V

         min: 0.960 V     min: 1.782 V     min: 1.471 V

       

      [Temperature]

       

        now: 84.72 C

        max: 91.67 C

        min: 67.18 C

       

       

      We have performed tests on both the development kit carrier board and our SGP6 board trying to eliminate the carrier as a source of the issue but the results are the same.

       

      Please review and let me know if you have any comments or questions.

       

        • Re: Measured junction temperatures are much higher than what Vivado produces in the Report Power tool.
          ctammann

          Hey Mike,

           

          I’d be curious to see if they could read the PMIC temperature using our utility. From the latest BSP they should be able to issue a "sensors" command from the prompt and have it return the telemetry data (also the XADC data). If it is in a chamber or something, reading that temp should give us a relative temperature of what the “board” is seeing. Obviously I’d like to see a manual, thermocouple measurement of the device but I doubt they have that. The vivado report I’m sure makes assumptions about the operating environment as well as the size, type and airflow associated with the thermal solution. If these assumptions vary widely from reality that could be all of the error right there. Any chance we know what their actual thermal solution looks like vs what Vivado assumes it to be?
          Thanks

          Chris

          1 of 1 people found this helpful