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.

ADC128S102QML-SP: Sparkle Code Issue - High Reliability

Part Number: ADC128S102QML-SP

Our team noticed that there is a GIDEP advisory (CE9-P-20-01A) for the “sparkle code” issue that discovered earlier on the TI 12 Bit ADC 5962R0722701VZA (ADC128S102WGRQV).

This Rev A revision captured some more details about the bench test result on the sparkle code occurrences and concluded the concurrence is about parts per billion (ppb) and has the same signature as an SET and recommended mitigation measures were provided.

Our designer would like to confirm on the mechanism of the sparkle code. One of the recommended mitigation mentioned in the advisory is to implement a Pseudo Code to obtain a 3 points average. However, we would like to confirm if the output error can be "self-corrected" given the same input condition and temperature each time. In another word, how likely is that error code can repeat itself within the samples selected if implementing the recommended "Mitigation Pseudo Code"?

Due to the criticality of the high reliability application. I'm looking forward for the timely support. Thanks!

  • Hi Dennis,

    Apologies for the delay.  You are correct about the GIDEP release and the ppb occurrences that were measured.  There were not any measured occurrences of back-to-back or even relatively close sparkles in the sample sets and therefore we have high confidence that typical SEE/SET mitigations methods will also be effective with the sparkle code.  Let us know if there are follow-up questiosn.