• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 34 subscribers
  • Views 148 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

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.

Original question:

MAX232E: TRS232EIPWR replaces because of EOL

TRS232E: TRS232EIPWR obsolescence reason and replacement

Letícia Mazzi
Prodigy 10 points

Part Number: TRS232E
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: MAX232

Hi,

I see that TRS232EIPWR was obsoleted and TI is suggesting the drop-in replacement MAX232EIPWR.

Is there a reason why Texas changed the part number? I couldn't find any TI release note related to this topic stating if it was PN unification, factory change or other reasons.

Thanks in advance!

 

  • 0
    TI__Guru* 79551 points

    Hi Leticia,

    There wasn't really a concrete reason (like something physical) as to why this package was discontinued. Our marketing team just tried to consolidate the portfolio to keep high volume packages of MAX family and TRS family. If PW package volume was much higher for the MAX family than the TRS family then the MAX family would remain and the TRS family would be EOL'd with recommended replacement pointing to the MAX instead.

    -Bobby

  • 0 in reply to BOBBY
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hi Bob,

    Thank you for the answer. So the answer would be to consolidate TI portfolio, right?

    Thank you!

  • 0 in reply to Letícia Mazzi
    TI__Guru* 79551 points

    Correct but the way they did it is not very straight forward. Some MAX devices were EOL'd and some TRS devices were EOL'd. So there isn't a very easy way to know which one is active without going to the product page. 

    -Bobby

  • 0
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hello TI Support Team,
    I would like to request further clarification of the following Texas Instruments components:

    TRS232EIPWR
    MAX232EIPWR

    Normally, components with the “MAX” prefix are associated with Maxim Integrated; however, both of the above‑referenced devices are offered by Texas Instruments, and we would like to better understand their background.
    Specifically, could you please help clarify the following points:


    1- Is the MAX232EIPWR sold by Texas Instruments a TI‑designed implementation of the industry‑standard MAX232, or does it originate from Maxim Integrated through licensing or acquisition?
    2- Does the “TRS” prefix indicate a Texas Instruments–specific product family, and was TRS232EIPWR originally designed and developed internally by TI?

    3- Were the TRS232EIPWR and MAX232EIPWR originally developed by different manufacturers?

    4- Are TRS232EIPWR and MAX232EIPWR based on the same silicon or analog IP, or are they distinct internal designs that are functionally equivalent and pin‑compatible?

    From TI’s perspective, is there any difference in qualification, long‑term support strategy, or compliance considerations between the two part numbers that customers should be aware of?

    This information will help us properly document component replacement and re‑qualification testing.

    Thank you in advance for your support.

  • 0 in reply to Letícia Mazzi
    TI__Guru* 79551 points
    Letícia Mazzi said:
    1- Is the MAX232EIPWR sold by Texas Instruments a TI‑designed implementation of the industry‑standard MAX232, or does it originate from Maxim Integrated through licensing or acquisition?

    Yes, this is a TI designed implementation of the standard RS 232. Maxim was first to market, TI came in later to make a pin to pin component using the same name. 

    Letícia Mazzi said:
    2- Does the “TRS” prefix indicate a Texas Instruments–specific product family, and was TRS232EIPWR originally designed and developed internally by TI?

    It is just a new name for the same device name that was previously 'MAX' and is designed and developed by TI. At the end of the day, the RS232 portfolio moved from different product lines in TI. The first ones, copied the name MAX. The following ones wanted to differentiate and came up with the name TRS. The only thing that changed was the name, both was designed internally by TI and basically just had different people spearhead different names/strategies for marketing....

    Letícia Mazzi said:
    3- Were the TRS232EIPWR and MAX232EIPWR originally developed by different manufacturers?

    Same company (TI). It's quite convoluted in the reason for having both names. Some customers did not like that a 'new' name was created and didn't trust it. Others would only accept the name 'MAX'. Most didn't care if we used a new name for the same exact product. To compete with the Maxim, some devices had the 'MAX' name to satisfy the customers who did not want to change device names.

    Letícia Mazzi said:
    4- Are TRS232EIPWR and MAX232EIPWR based on the same silicon or analog IP, or are they distinct internal designs that are functionally equivalent and pin‑compatible?

    Silicon wise they should be the same. Since they are named differently sometimes minor changes can occur. Like change in leadframe designer or final test or mold compound changes. Could also include a different manufacturing flow. Overtime, if a refresh of a die occurs it could make it so that the two no longer share the same die. As of right now, the two are the same (silicon) due to the recent refresh of moving old process node technology to the new one. Overtime, things could drift away from each other..... 

    Letícia Mazzi said:
    From TI’s perspective, is there any difference in qualification, long‑term support strategy, or compliance considerations between the two part numbers that customers should be aware of?

    I think after the recent wave of EOL's, the devices should be set up for long term support. The point of the recent design changes was to allow for 10+ years of life to the devices. I believe all of the refreshes to this portfolio (RS232) are done so any devices that are active should remain active for quite some time. 

    -Bobby