Hello.
Intel recently published PCN 116196-00 on Atom E3800 series CPUs stating they are going to transition to D1 stepping to mitigate LPC bus degradation issues:
http://qdms.intel.com/dm/i.aspx/BF417A50-F5AE-4179-8393-08083292AC0D/PCN116196-00.pdf
Summary of changes of the D-1 stepping:
1. Intel identified possible circuit design issues in the LPC bus, USB2.0 LS/FS and SD Card logic which may result in degradation of the LPC bus, USB2.0 LS/FS and SD Card signals over time at a rate higher than Intel's quality goals. The D-1 stepping dispositions these possible issues.
If you look at the Specification Update for the mentioned series:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...ion-updates/atom-e3800-family-spec-update.pdf
... you will find this:
VLI89 System May Experience Inability to Boot or May Cease Operation
Problem: Under certain conditions where activity is high for several years the LPC, USB (low speed and full speed) and SD Card circuitry may stop functioning in the outer years of use.
Implication: LPC circuitry that stops functioning may cause operation to cease or inability to boot. SD Card or USB circuitry that stops functioning may cause SD Cards to be unrecognized or Low Speed or Full Speed USB devices to not function. Intel has only observed this behavior in simulation. Designs that implement the LPC interface at the 1.8V signal voltage are not affected by the LPC part of this erratum.
Workaround:Firmware code changes for LPC circuitry and mitigations for SD Card & USB circuitry have been identified and may be implemented for this erratum.
Status: For the steppings affected, see the Summary Tables of Changes
Does it look familiar? Yes, it is the same issue that killed Atom C2000 - the famous AVR54 bug mentioned in this Specification Update:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...ion-updates/atom-c2000-family-spec-update.pdf
The Atom C2000 is server products expected to run 24/7. Therefore if there is a design flaw it will likely be impacted first. The Atom E3800 is embedded design often used running industrial machines - for example the Intel NUC DE3815TYBE, which uses it, has I2C bus headers that are common for devices controlling sensors, motors etc. Those Atoms E3800 are therefore also likely to be used for significant amount of time.
Now the possibly big thing here is that if you look at the Specification Update for Celeron and Pentium N- and J- series:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...n2820-n2815-n2806-j1850-j1750-spec-update.pdf
...you will find that most of the documented bugs are the same as in on the Atom E3800 series (although mentioned in different order and with different names). With all this it is hard to believe all the Bay Trail products are not based on single design and not affected with this LPC bus design flaw. The LPC flaw is not (yet) mentioned in the consumer products' specification update, maybe because those are not expected to be used that much? But if the issue is there and someone plans to use those consumer products for home server or for longer time, he/she might be impacted the same way Atoms C2000 and E3800 are impacted.
I hope Intel will clarify on this soon as this might be much bigger deal than with the Atom C2000 fiasco.
Intel recently published PCN 116196-00 on Atom E3800 series CPUs stating they are going to transition to D1 stepping to mitigate LPC bus degradation issues:
http://qdms.intel.com/dm/i.aspx/BF417A50-F5AE-4179-8393-08083292AC0D/PCN116196-00.pdf
Summary of changes of the D-1 stepping:
1. Intel identified possible circuit design issues in the LPC bus, USB2.0 LS/FS and SD Card logic which may result in degradation of the LPC bus, USB2.0 LS/FS and SD Card signals over time at a rate higher than Intel's quality goals. The D-1 stepping dispositions these possible issues.
If you look at the Specification Update for the mentioned series:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...ion-updates/atom-e3800-family-spec-update.pdf
... you will find this:
VLI89 System May Experience Inability to Boot or May Cease Operation
Problem: Under certain conditions where activity is high for several years the LPC, USB (low speed and full speed) and SD Card circuitry may stop functioning in the outer years of use.
Implication: LPC circuitry that stops functioning may cause operation to cease or inability to boot. SD Card or USB circuitry that stops functioning may cause SD Cards to be unrecognized or Low Speed or Full Speed USB devices to not function. Intel has only observed this behavior in simulation. Designs that implement the LPC interface at the 1.8V signal voltage are not affected by the LPC part of this erratum.
Workaround:Firmware code changes for LPC circuitry and mitigations for SD Card & USB circuitry have been identified and may be implemented for this erratum.
Status: For the steppings affected, see the Summary Tables of Changes
Does it look familiar? Yes, it is the same issue that killed Atom C2000 - the famous AVR54 bug mentioned in this Specification Update:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...ion-updates/atom-c2000-family-spec-update.pdf
The Atom C2000 is server products expected to run 24/7. Therefore if there is a design flaw it will likely be impacted first. The Atom E3800 is embedded design often used running industrial machines - for example the Intel NUC DE3815TYBE, which uses it, has I2C bus headers that are common for devices controlling sensors, motors etc. Those Atoms E3800 are therefore also likely to be used for significant amount of time.
Now the possibly big thing here is that if you look at the Specification Update for Celeron and Pentium N- and J- series:
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/w...n2820-n2815-n2806-j1850-j1750-spec-update.pdf
...you will find that most of the documented bugs are the same as in on the Atom E3800 series (although mentioned in different order and with different names). With all this it is hard to believe all the Bay Trail products are not based on single design and not affected with this LPC bus design flaw. The LPC flaw is not (yet) mentioned in the consumer products' specification update, maybe because those are not expected to be used that much? But if the issue is there and someone plans to use those consumer products for home server or for longer time, he/she might be impacted the same way Atoms C2000 and E3800 are impacted.
I hope Intel will clarify on this soon as this might be much bigger deal than with the Atom C2000 fiasco.