That's something to check them.
As far as I know, Nikolaus thoroughly rechecked all traces that have to do with the power supply on the CPU board and made sure they follow exactly TIs specs earlier this year, because my first idea also were power supply issues.

But it might be a good idea to recheck them, in case something has been overlooked.
AFAIK Nikolaus added even more capacitors for this CPU Board revision, but I think they were only for VSYS, not between the PALMAS and OMAP5.

I've asked Nikolaus a couple of days ago to make a package of the current schematics, etc., as the one I have do not reflect all the changes made since the last prototype run (AFAIK).

Hopefully, he'll find the time soon and can post the schematics here at the mailing list so we can all check and compare it with TIs recommendations.

On November 9, 2016 5:33:49 AM GMT+01:00, Matthijs van Duin <matthijsvanduin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9 November 2016 at 01:33, Michael Mrozek <EvilDragon@openpandora.org> wrote:
Hm. VDD_MPU is being handled by the PALMAS automatically, as far as I know.
It measures the voltage directly at the OMAP5 and adjusts it, so that should be fine.

It's not that simple.

The remote sensing of VDD_MPU allows palmas to compensate mean voltage drop, but it is not going to deal with transients. Even if it could measure and compensate fast enough (it can't), the loop inductance of the power distribution net would probably prevent it from succeeding. (Such an aggressive control loop would also be prone to instability.)

Dealing with transients is still the job of decoupling caps as usual. TI gives quite a bit of guidance on the power distribution nets in general (sections 7.2.1-7.2.4, 7.3 of swps051k) and decoupling caps in particular (e.g. section 7.3.2-7.3.4).

Matthijs

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.