Have a question about the Next-Gen BeagleBone? Ask it here!

For anyone else with one of these, see

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/beagleboard/beaglebone-black/G_QjWvBNXvc

you'll probably want to go to http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=Updating_The_Software and get the latest software image (2013.05.3 as of now) before trying to do anything with opkg

you'll probably want to go to http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=Updating_The_Software and get the latest software image (2013.05.3 as of now) before trying to do anything with opkg

Something must have been wrong with the build.  Looks like they pulled it.  I can see it in the change history so you're not a liar

John Beetem wrote:

 

Out of insatiable curiosity, I took a look at the TPS65217 data sheet.  According to my understanding, it can indeed tolerate 20V on AC or USB, but if they're more than 6.5V the internal NFETs switch off to protect SYS from excessive voltage.

There's a big difference between tolerating 20V without destroying the regulator and working correctly at 20V input. The regulator surviving but the rest of the board being destroyed isn't a good outcome either.

Turning off the outputs above 6v to protect things may be a good thing, but on the BBB there's a bypass of the unprotected input onto P9. So it's impossible to know if an input above 5v is safe unless you know the details of the power system on all possible capes as well.

Mike seems either unwilling or incapable of reading past the absolute maximum ratings line in the datasheet, that's fine and I'll now leave him to it.  I do however feel that mis-information like this needs challenged and with references to the information provided by the manufacturer.

I'll leave it to others to read the information themselves and decide if the beaglebone blacks SRM and TI's data sheets or Mikes statements are the ones they should pay attention to.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

The standard Angstrom package parse-edid contains /usr/bin/parse-edid and this works for me:

That doesn't seem to be on mine, but I'm still running one of the earliest angstrom images.  I've learned the hard way that opkg usage tends to break things so I don't tend to bother with it.

The one I linked to provides source to read-edid, get-edid (for DOS) and parse-edid, however try to build it and it's looking for things like libx86.h hence not easily buildable on an arm device. Possible if you have the patience to work through it though.

As expected, the BBB runs its HDMI at its maximum of 1280X720 into the above more capable screen.

What's interesting here is that I get 1280x1024 into a 1600x1200 screen. I'm going to grab the 2013.06.20 angstrom and see if there's any improvement.

Iain Paton wrote:

 

I'm going to grab the 2013.06.20 angstrom and see if there's any improvement.

So with the 2013.06.20 angstrom image I get 1920x1080p24 on an appropriate display, and 1920x1080p30 after adding capemgr.disable_partno=BB-BONELT-HDMI into the uEnv.txt on /dev/mmcblk0p1 as suggested in http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=BeagleBoneBlack_HDMI

I've had no luck getting 1920x1080p60 with no audio yet and the kernel in this latest angstrom still has the EDID firmware loading capability disabled.

There's a lot of extra debug information in the logs now to show you what modes were detected and why some were excluded.

It's worth noting that xrandr only shows the "supported" resolutions, not the full list. For the full list you need to go look in the kernel logs.

parse-edid similarly doesn't list all of the modes, and in my case one of the two modes it shows has been specifically excluded as invalid by the kernel driver!

Morgaine, I suspect you'll not be able to get 1920x1080 out of your monitor by default. Even if it is technically capable of it. Might work with a forced override, but as it seems that while a forced override will work for the console, Xorg helpfully ignores the override

Maximum absolute ratings are not "operating ratings," what they basically mean is that if for any event you happen to apply more than the absolute, there is a very high probability that you will have a fried integrated circuit. That parameter means that those inputs are protected up to 20V not that will operate up to 20V.

The maximum recommended operating voltage is 5.8V ... NOT 20V

Also, the TPS65217 includes input overvoltage detection, and the threshold values are 5.8V - 6.4V, if you exceed that threshold the PMIC will enter in FAULT mode and shutdown power until the voltage goes back to < 6.5V.

Following your reasoning the TPS65217 should also work with -0.3V ...

If you care to take a look at the Raspberry Pi schematics you will learn that it has three voltage regulators on the board, plus the internal ones in the SoC and Ethernet controller (not populated in Model A,) what it does not have (pitty) is a Power Management chip.

BTW, have you actually tried to power your BBB with 12V ?

Just to make it clear ...

YOU CAN NOT POWER THE BBB WITH 12V

Cheers

Jorge

selsinork wrote:

 

So with the 2013.06.20 angstrom image I get 1920x1080p24 on an appropriate display, and 1920x1080p30 after adding capemgr.disable_partno=BB-BONELT-HDMI into the uEnv.txt on /dev/mmcblk0p1 as suggested in http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=BeagleBoneBlack_HDMI

 

Morgaine, I suspect you'll not be able to get 1920x1080 out of your monitor by default.

I should have said that my BBB's parse-edid output was on the original image and kernel (3.8.6) but with that utility installed using opkg.  I'm clearly not going to see any improvements until get a new image (or at least kernel) installed, but I was postponing that until I take the step of moving to Debian.

I see no future in Angstrom, because "support" from its maintainer ranges from poor to non-existent.  He blames all problems on upstream and has no interest in making Angstrom work out of the box, which is why every problem that I experienced on my old BeagleBone white a year ago is still present in BBB.  That makes Angstrom worthless to me.  I don't have time to be doing the maintainer's job for him.  It contrasts markedly with the pride that Debian take in making their distro work cleanly.

Morgaine,  Sadly I have to agree with your view of Angstrom. I have spent days / weeks trying to get things working on Angstrom only to find that packages are out of date, built for 3.2 kernel, have bits missing or are just not there at all. I have tried building the missing bits to find yet more missing dependencies so eventually I have given up with it.

I am now running Debian, everything I want is there and reasonably up to date and, most importantly, it works.

No I have no tried to, but I will try it tonight and let you know....

I am good at letting out factory smoke...

True Brian, I've seen some dependency issues too, it seems that listed dependencies are not really complete.  I've had to copy files over from other distros occasionally to fill in the gaps, which is unsatisfactory because that just stores up problems for the future.

On top of this, several packages that I use regularly are not available in opkg list despite being provided in every other distro that I've used, so it's not really a supportive distro even without its maintenance problems.  It's really just a thrown together initial selection of  packages without any further improvement nor maintenance, and it's either untested for full functionality or else tested by someone with a very low quality bar.  Needless to say there is no official bug tracker, and it seems that there is no willingness to accept that problems even exist, let alone to get them fixed so that users can enjoy the distro and be immediately productive with it.

In fact, just reading the Angstrom website front page highlights that Angstrom is completely unsupported and that if you have any problems, they are yours.  It reads like an unprofessional tantrum by a 14-year old BOFH wannabe.  It stresses the importance of reading the FAQ but the FAQ button links to a nonexistent page, which is totally typical.  Given that so many other distros exist and have effective maintainers with an ethos of continual improvement, why bother with Angstrom?  I wouldn't advise it to anyone who wants to get work done.

At one of the sites, that you guys sent me, I saw a conversation about

the two varieties of Debian, one was the Desktop version, and the other

I don't remember the name of.  They were saying that the Desktop version

is much larger and takes longer to load, and has no advantage.  Is the

mystery version the one you are using?

There are a few pre-built images around but I built my own using the Rober Nelson build instructions the rootfs he provides has apache2 and sshd installed and running,  no X windows so just console but then once it's up and running you can configure whatever else you need.

I boot and run from a 16Gbyte class 10 uSD card not the eMMC. I also have a 1TByte USB HD which I use for development and backup.

.

There are a few pre-built images around but I built my own using the Rober Nelson build instructions the rootfs he provides has apache2 and sshd installed and running,  no X windows so just console but then once it's up and running you can configure whatever else you need.

I boot and run from a 16Gbyte class 10 uSD card not the eMMC. I also have a 1TByte USB HD which I use for development and backup.

.