• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 770 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

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.

TCAN1043HG-Q1: Missing SPLIT voltage output compared to NXP TJA1043

Vincent LORENTZ
Intellectual 320 points
Part Number: TCAN1043HG-Q1
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TCAN1043

Dear TI customer support,

for automotive CAN and CAN-FD applications, we are currently considering two transceivers: TI TCAN1043HG-Q1 and NXP TJA1043. Both are great CAN transceivers, but I am wondering why TI has a unused pin ("NC") instead of having implemented the SPLIT pin like on the NXP TJA1043? Maybe there is another CAN-FD transceiver in the pipeline at TI offering an additional SPLIT pin?

Further, I would like to ask if there are any plans for 8Mb/s CAN-FD transceivers or if this is currently reserved to Microchip?

Best regards

Vincent

  • 0
    TI__Guru 62910 points
    Hi Vincent,

    The SPLIT pin is primarily intended to help improve RF emissions by providing a stronger bias to the recessive-state common mode voltage, thus improving the symmetry of the CANH/CANL lines and ensuring that dominant-state and recessive-state common modes (averages of CANH and CANL) remain equal. TCAN1043 was designed to have inherently strong emissions performance, though, via careful matching between the CANH and CANL driver structures and so we determined that this additional SPLIT connection was not necessary. In case you are interested in any EMC test data for this device (so that you can compare it to competitive solutions), I can send you our test reports via e-mail.

    Regarding future developments, I'm limited in what I can share via this public forum. I will say that some of our current higher-speed solutions have output rise/fall times that are fast enough to allow for toggling at up to 8 Mbps, but it is difficult to determine whether the timing characteristics (such as bit delay symmetry) are sufficient since the ISO 11898-2 physical layer standard only defines timing parameters up to 5 Mbps. Our general approach here has been to specify the conditions under which we can ensure CAN compliance and leave the validation of extended operating ranges up to the user (since the performance will be limited not only by the PHY device but by the cabling and associated network loading as well the ability of the controller to properly sample the received signals).

    If you have any thoughts on what sort of transceiver performance would be desired in order to achieve a robust 8-Mbps link I would be interested in hearing them. Otherwise, please let me know if you have any questions or if I can clarify further on the above points.

    Regards,
    Max
  • 0 in reply to Max Robertson
    Intellectual 320 points
    Hi Max,

    thank you for your detailled response. Yes, I would be interested in the EMC tests of the TCAN1043HG-Q1. Could you provide them to me per Email?

    Thank you very much and best regards
    Vincent