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.

DAC5687: Inquiry on how to control both IOUTA and IOUTB with one DA(15..0) input.

Part Number: DAC5687
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: DAC8822,

Hello?

As the title, in order to reduce the number of buses, only one DATA BUS is used and inquiring about the control method of IOUTA and IOUTB.


In the datasheet, I confirmed how to output both DA[15:0] and DB[15:0] inputs to IOUTA in an interleaved manner, but there does not seem to be a way to split one input into two outputs.

The current target application requires controlling four outputs, so we plan to use two of these devices.

However, wiring all of the buses for each bus is quite burdensome due to the number of connector pins (64-lines(=16x4) or more).

I would like to check whether there is a way to use it by connecting it in parallel with a bus.

If this product doesn't work, I tried to use the DAC8822, but the DAC8822 seems slow and I don't know the sampling rate or on/off switching time, so I hope this is possible.

Please reply.

Thank you.

  • Hey Lee, 

    In Interleaved mode DACA (I) and DACB (Q) data is sent over the DA bus at 2 times the input rate in an interleaved fashion. Both DACA and DACB receive independent data. 

    This would allow you to control four DAC channels independently with only 32 data pairs (when using two DAC5687's in interleaved bus mode.

    I think this is what you were looking for? Could you elaborate if not?

    Regards, 

    Matt

  • I read the datasheet again based on what you provided.

    I think I misinterpreted the interleaved method.

    Based on what you mentioned, it certainly seems possible to control two DAC5687s with 32-lines.
    Here, it seems that if you use TXENABLE with EMIF's Chip Select, maybe control two chips with 16-lines.

    According to the picture, I don't think QFLAG is suitable for grouping.

    If you find a better method later, please reply to the comment.

    Thank you.

    S.Y.Lee