This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

LM2903B-Q1: BA2903YFVM-MGTR VS LM2903BQDGKRQ1 Drop in P2P correct?

Part Number: LM2903B-Q1

Tool/software:

Target device LM2903BQDGKRQ1

TI's cross reference says it is completely drop-in OK, but the customer thinks this is a mistake because the shape is different. Is this correct? Could you please check this ASAP? It seems that TI's cross reference is not correct. Does TI have a completely drop-in P2P?

BA2903YFVM-MGTR VS LM2903BQDGKRQ1

BA2903YFVM-M - データシートと製品詳細 | ローム株式会社 - ROHM Semiconductor

www.rohm.co.jp/.../ba2903yfvm-m-product

  • Hello Daisuke,

    No. It is not direct drop-in replacement. We keep running in to this issue with the Japanese device packages. The X-ref is wrong.

    The Rohm MSOP8 package is 1mm narrower than our DGK package (4mm vs. 4.9mm across the leads).

    We do not have an equivalent of the Rohm MSOP8 package. Each manufacturer has a slightly different SOP version (no standard).

    The DGK is the closest. A creative layout with longer pads could accommodate both packages.

    It should be an electrical equivalent (P) as it is NOT package compatible, but electrically and pin-out compatible. I have sent in the update.

  • Paul-san, Thank you for this explanation. I understand it. I will continue to discuss with customer.

    Thanks and best regards,

    Daisuke Nomura