Part Number: TPS22990 Hi team,
Do we have higher voltage load siwtch and p2p with TPS22990? My customer would like to increase the voltage in their lagecy design and drop-in replacement is necessary.
BRs,
Rannie
Part Number: TPS22990 Dear Sir,
One of the products with TPS22990 shipped to our customer site. But it could not boot during the test.
Customer sent it back to RMA. Then we found out PG keep low.
Could you advide what kind of the problem happened…
Part Number: TPS22990 Is it possible to further delay the rise time of the TPS22990DMLT by connecting a capacitor of 10,000pF or more to the CT terminal?
Part Number: TPS22990 Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TPS22919 , TPS22997 Hi Texas Team,
I am using TPS22990 as a load switch at the input of device under test, My Input voltage is 3.3V@6amp max, Its digitally control using Enable pin, while operation…
Part Number: TPS22990 Tool/software: Hello
please check the schematic here: https://slow.pics/F822FQQz/
I have 2xTPS22990 devices to have 3.3v and 5v inputs, then both of them connected to the same output so that the user selects the required…
Part Number: TPS22990 Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TPS22997
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I am considering TPS22990 and have searched within E2E regarding SOA, but have not found a suitable answer.
(+) TPS22990: Asking for the SOA curve of TPS22990…
Part Number: TPS22990 HI Ti team members
I met an issue that the thermal pad solder-connect on this component, can you help consult with experts at TI regarding the mininum required solder area for this component without affecting its funcational efficency…
Part Number: TPS22990 Tool/software: Hi Team,
Could you share TPS22990 reflow profile with me?
If this is information be public in TI website, could you let me know where to download reflow profile?
Regards,
Ben
Part Number: TPS22990 Tool/software: Hi Team,
Did we have standard tin volume to avoid s older insufficient issue of TPS22990 thermal pad?
Regards,
Ben
Part Number: TPS22990 Hi sir,
C T =4700pF, V IN =1.8V , based on below fomula turns 118.72, which is not aligned with Table 1, which result is 114.4, do i calculate wrongly somewhere?
