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.

TCA9555: I2C Timing Requirement Criterion

Part Number: TCA9555
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: PCA9555

Hi Sirs,

Sorry to bother you.

We have a project use TCA9555 and run I2C frequency at 100kHz, we use oscilloscope to measure the SCL rise time that is 844ns and meets I2C 100kHz criterion.

However, BMC chipset always feedback I2C device detection error of TCA9555 until we fine-tune timing requirement to meet 400kHz criterion (rise time < 300 ns)

We think we are under the IC spec(<1000ns) but BMC chipset always feedback I2C device detection error .

Is possible to explain it why have this phenomenon?

By the way, NXP PCA9555 no issue on the same condition.

Thanks!!

  • Hey Shu,

    Can you post scopeshots of an I2C transaction (SCL and SDA) of both the TI device and the NXP? I want to compare the two and see if there is any noticeable difference, the only thing I could think of where there would be a difference is when the two devices ACK so I would like to focus on that.

    Thanks,
    -Bobby
  • Hi Sirs,

    The fail phenomenon is our BMC will show Error Message (0x25, 7-bit à 0x4A, 8-bit) at TCA9555, but NXP PCA9555 didn't.

    We think datasheet of both are the same ( I2C input rise time max is 1000ns)

    TCA9555

    1.

    2. 

    3.

    4.

    5.

    PCA9555

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

  • Hey Shu,

    I do not see anything that would indicate error with our device. If you increase the pull up resistor using the PCA9555 so that the rise time is 866 ns or greater, does the error come up?

    To me, our device is working and the issue is somehow related to the system's coding and how it checks the I2C line for error.

    It seems like if you want to avoid this issue without changing the code, you could use a stronger pull up resistor.

    Thanks,
    -Bobby
  • Hi Shu-Cheng,

    Have you had a chance to review Bobby's comments above?

    I know there has been some offline discussion via email as well, so if you prefer to continue the discussion there that is OK too (in which case we could close this thread).

    Regards,
    Max