Which silicon version of TM4C is this?

Feel your pain!   One wonders if the "marking protocol" has changed over time?

Is your MCU manual the most current?   And - is its "issue date" appropriate for the date code of your (specific) MCU?

Your choices appear to be: Search for past MCU manuals which (may) have different "marking protocols" and/or await vendor's investigation & response.   

Might I suggest that you "exploit this opportunity" to better perfect your business relationship w/vendor's (most) local Sales and/or Tech team?   That always helps - both for this specific quest and (long) into the future.  

(I judge this to be - by far - a Sales Investigation task - not one (well or efficiently) handled by our forum's tech expert...)

Vindhyachal Takniki said:

But on this MCU there is no number in the end on line three

The DID0 register in the device contains the device revision, which can be read by software or the debugger. Reading the DID0 register on the TM4C123GH6PMI target on the launchpad reported a MAJOR value of 1 and a MINOR value of 1, which is Part Revision 6 according to the table on the Device Markings section on page 1403 of the datasheet.

Not sure why the revision number is left off the package, as it means you have to read out the revision from the device.

Chester Gillon said:

it means you have to read out the revision from the device.

Indeed - but that reveals a major weakness - does it not?   Required is the installation of the (unknown) device and then the attachment of JTAG/SWD, thus substantial time & effort.   

Missed by this approach is, "What if the device is the wrong revision - one known to have serious issues/errata?"   Does it (best) serve - all users - to, "Install first - and regret later?"   (i.e. Ready, Shoot, Aim!)  If the "discovered" version is undesirable - the IC must be removed - not always quick/easy...

Now in the case of a single (or few) LPads - it is little pain to, "Do the factory's work for them."   Yet - for production - when lots of hundreds or thousands of boards are to be produced - no (real) Contract Manufacturer would accept devices w/out "full & proper" markings.   Never/ever would they reflow first - and only (later) probe for correctness! 

Such a time & effort-laden approach - especially when the factory may have an answer at hand - should at minimum - be postponed...

Hi Amit,

Should we not seek (official) clarification as to (exactly) how "Rev 7" is marked?  

The earlier guidance - "It should be a Rev x" does not meet (normal) Risk-Reward criteria when preparing devices for volume, board manufacture...

None of this "your doing."    (which is why I suggested this be routed to your Sales Dept.) - who (normally) are in the best position to effectively respond...

Hi Amit,

May I respectfully disagree with the "normal course" you've presented.   Indeed that works fine for new user - with 2 or 3 LPads or Eval Boards.

Your firm's goal is to sell in volume - is it not?   And - in that case - if firms such as mine procure "thousands" of (unmarked or poorly marked) devices - what then?   Do we pay a premium price to have 2-5 MCUs reflowed/assembled - and (only) then read SYSCTL?   Does that - absolutely - guarantee that all other MCUs w/in the lot are the same revision?   (I doubt that)

Once again I think the issue of, "Why the poster has raised" is NOT most critical.   Why the MCUs are not marked - to a known/clear specification - is!

Thank you Robert - with the past (grave difficulty) w/M3 MCUs - (anything) along these lines is troubling.

As I wrote (first answering post here) we would not expect "Sales" to produce best/brightest "Tech Issue" resolution.

Expecting "Tech" to supply a "Sales responsibility" clarification or ruling is misguided - and indeed - as you note - worrisome...

This forum is - after all - by far a, "Tech-Engineering" one - and becomes diluted when tasked w/Sales and/or Administrative functions. 

Hi Amit,

As the errata - gradually - is corrected (and sometimes "new" errata is detected) our knowledge of (exactly) which version we've purchased becomes mandatory - does it not?

The recent production of so many devices - with their Rev. markings "null & void" - raises great concern. May I note that this is NOT an industry-wide practice - and places your devices at a disadvantage - especially for your volume users.   (disturbs rather than, "warms/fuzzies")