• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 35 subscribers
  • Views 962 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:

Interface forum

PCA9306: PCA9306DCUR marking question

Greg Edwards1
Prodigy 30 points

Part Number: PCA9306

Hello, I have a question about the top marking for PCA9306DCUR for AOI Inspection programming. In a post in the Interface Forum by Giovanni Cairoli about this part, they posted an image in the first part of the thread that relates to my question. I have contacted TI customer support, was sent to TI counterfeit support to follow protocol, and corresponded with my vendor, all ongoing since December before this posting. I have the marking confirmed in writing as valid, but was provided no supporting documentation and cannot find any reference to this code variant through the TI site marking translator or in the data sheet. I thought that I could receive additional information from those contacts, but no one will point to any data that I can see that confirms or explains the variance. I understand counterfeit concerns and that this is a public forum, I just thought that I would have received confidential resolution through my email correspondence, but did not.

TI data sheets are generally the most clear and easy to navigate for markings, this is the first issue I've had. For the part PCA9306DCUR, the marking is listed in the sheet as (7BDP, 7BDS, 7BDY), the variant is a marking on two lines, two characters per line, with a bar to the left indicating polarity: BD 7Y. Pasted below is an image of the part that I have in-house as reference and comparison the image mentioned above.

Thank you in advance for any assistance or clarity that you may provide with this,

-Greg Edwards

 

 

  • 0
    TI__Guru* 79531 points

    Hey Greg,

    The PCA9306DCU device I have on our PCA9306 EVMs also look as yours does in your picture (that is BD 7Y) which we supplied ourselves. Our internal server which stores marking information for packages also shows 7BDx as the correct top marking.

    I can ask my management and my contacts in quality to see if there was some kind of top marking error made either in our system (servers and datasheet) or potentially during the manufacturing process.

    -Bobby

  • 0 in reply to BOBBY
    Prodigy 30 points

    Bobby, that would be great. Please let me know what you find out. The image pasted is the standard part marking I had always seen used in the past, I believe dating back to 2014.  

    Thank you, Greg

  • 0 in reply to Greg Edwards1
    TI__Guru* 79531 points

    Hey Greg,

    So I think our quality team was actually able to trace back the issue to a manufacturing error:

    This part is dual sourced through two different assembly sites, which up until recently, used different topside symbolizations (one being the ones you and our EVMs have but also the 7BDx which is specified in the datasheet).

    Our team has since so the team put in a request to fix this. That is to switch SITE A's marking over to follow SITE B (that being 7BDx). They match now (and will moving forward), but SITE A's marking from prior to 11/24/19 showed the marking you reported as BD 7Y.

    "but was provided no supporting documentation and cannot find any reference to this code variant through the TI site marking translator or in the data sheet."

    Do you require some kind of document for this? (Or would this on-line forum statement above be sufficient?) (Or an Email with the above copy pasted from a TI domain also work for you?)

    Thanks,

    -Bobby

  • 0 in reply to BOBBY
    Prodigy 30 points

    Thank you, Bobby, that is a clear explanation for the marking variance. I feel the detail that you provided is sufficient for me to have full confidence in the part's marking and how to handle it as an acceptable derive for my inspection. Since going forward markings will align with the data sheet I know to expect to see them go back once stock is flushed but to keep both derives for inspection. If possible, I would appreciate having an TI domain email with the details. I will save it with a read me file for the part so others can easily navigate any variances, if encountered, as my inspection derives have not encountered all possibilities of the x part of the marking. Thanks again for your very quick, helpful responses. I will check the "resolved" box at the bottom of this reply. -Greg

  • 0 in reply to Greg Edwards1
    TI__Guru* 79531 points

    Hey Greg,

    For the TI domain email with the details, please send me an email at duynguyen@ti.com

    Thanks,

    -Bobby