Eagle footprints or lack there of!

Jay,

I have submitted a request to our modeling team.  If you click on "suggest additional formats", you can also submit a request.  

I don't have a definitive answer for you at his time, but will re-post when I hear something.

Thanks Ryan

I'll request as well.

I could not find where to make the request, where do I do this?  Never mind, found it.

SubMicro

A.K.A Robert Willis

Hellmut Kohlsdorf

I was looking for the footprint for a I2C switch and couldn´t find it for Eagle. In general I find TI is not doing itself a favour by not including the layout of the pads for their packages in their datasheet as you find them in those of most other companies. So I am building the Eagle library element for the device with a TSSOP 24 pins just taking existing similar ones as reference.

Some TI datasheets have recommended footprints, others have simply the package outline. The reason for the lack of "Recommend layouts" is likely due to differences in PCB design rules and assembly needs. You have to work with your PCB supplier to know what clearances, etc are necessary. And you need to know how your boards will be assembled. Do you need longer pads for hand soldering? 

Anyways, it's reasonable to use a standard footprint for a TSSOP24 (or whatever) package. Semiconductor vendors uses standard packages for a reason.

I'll refrain from making any comments about EAGLE.

-a

Nice try but just an excuse. Look into other companies datasheets and you will always find a recommended layout for the footprint. Here TI is far below industry standards! Sad, considering the great products they have! I am just build ing a I2C Hub with 3 PCa9548APWR (8:1 switch), 24 P82B96PWR and a controller. Its function is to serve up to 24 humidity and temperature sensors used in a HB LED application under critical environmental conditions as part of a greater vehicle. I have delivered to my clients so far the studies with the material used from the suppliers of the parts. Here I will have to step away from my standard rules. I have received the permit due to the reputation of TI and my own to use those parts! But TI makes ones life more difficult. I hope Andy is not an employee of TI!

Hellmut Kohlsdorf

Nice try but just an excuse. Look into other companies datasheets and you will always find a recommended layout for the footprint. Here TI is far below industry standards! 

I don't mean to get into a pissing contest here, but I happen to be working with an Analog Devices ADC and its data sheet is open on the computer. I looked at it and there's no suggested PCB footprint. I then decided to check some of the other parts in this design (an FPGA, an SDRAM, a flash memory, some regulators, some other stuff), and none of the data sheets for these things have a recommended footprint.

If you are looking for TI's (or any other vendor's) blessing for specific PCB footprints and layouts, you'll wait a long time, because the vendors can't know your specific application's requirements. At best, they'll say, "Refer to the IPC standards." 

I hope Andy is not an employee of TI!

No, just someone who's been doing this for awhile ...

-a

You are right, and you must be very close to be 60 years old to be longer in this biz than me! I have worked with National Semiconductor as FAE and with Motorola Semiconductor, just to name the two I have spend most of my time with! But with Analog devices it is thinkable, as analog parts are more application specific.

Ok i'm still without a foot print that works! I've tried making one but eagle is well difficult if you ask me but it's what I have. Can anybody help me out on this?

Have a look at the site of the distributor Farnell, he has Eagle footprints for many devices. I have found the ones I needed there!

Thanks I'll give that a try.

Ok I looked but I can't seem to locate any kind of foot prints. I searched for Farnell and was taken to an element14 Farnell site??

Could you provide a link to the site?

Thanks

Robert