Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Olivier BUTLER: "RE: [PATCH] :Browser : cosmetic improvement"
• Previous message: Chris Pimlott: "Re: [PATCH] :Browser : cosmetic improvement"
• Maybe in reply to: Stuart Tedford: "ATA - USE_POWEROFF vs USE_SLEEP"
• Next in thread: Andrew Jamieson: "Re: ATA - USE_POWEROFF vs USE_SLEEP"
• Reply: Andrew Jamieson: "Re: ATA - USE_POWEROFF vs USE_SLEEP"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> On another note - you mention tri-stating the ATA bus during
> sleep; did you try it with the bus driven (to some idle state)?

I can't drive it, /G is controlled by a chip select signal from the address
decoder in the CPU. And the data direction is controlled by the /RD
signal...

> From what i understand of the ATA interface, the bus remains
> active during sleep. You'd want to tri-state it for power-off,
> but not sleep.

Ok , then it may not be what causes the extra current draw. What could it be
then...?

> Floating CMOS inputs could explain the extra
> current draw.

That's what I have been thinking. But I'm definitely not sure...

/Linus

• Next message: Olivier BUTLER: "RE: [PATCH] :Browser : cosmetic improvement"
• Previous message: Chris Pimlott: "Re: [PATCH] :Browser : cosmetic improvement"
• Maybe in reply to: Stuart Tedford: "ATA - USE_POWEROFF vs USE_SLEEP"
• Next in thread: Andrew Jamieson: "Re: ATA - USE_POWEROFF vs USE_SLEEP"
• Reply: Andrew Jamieson: "Re: ATA - USE_POWEROFF vs USE_SLEEP"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]