About the errata UCS10

Kevin Song

Other Parts Discussed in Thread: MSP430F5438

Hi,

Does anyone know if the error described in UCS10 has been solved in latest MSP430F5438/A chip or if TI has plan on solving it in hardware?

Thanks.

over 13 years ago

0 Jens-Michael Gross over 13 years ago

Guru 227245 points

Hmmm, the 54xxA errata sheet SLAZ057N listes UCS10 as resolved for silicon revision F but not for G. Same for several more. So I actually don't know what to believe.

My assumption is that the rows for rev F and G have been twisted and that rev G does not contain this erratum anymore.

0 Luis RC over 13 years ago in reply to Jens-Michael Gross

TI__Genius 16840 points

Hi,

This is a little confusing but RevF is newer than RevG.

RevG is the result of fab/process change to offload manufacturing for RevE. This happened concurrently to the creation and release of the new RevF, so the factory took the next letter.

In other words:

- RevE = RevG

- RevF is newer with more bug fixes (including UCS10).

- RevH - when/if available - will be based on RevF.

Regards,

Luis R

0 Jens-Michael Gross over 13 years ago in reply to Luis RC

Guru 227245 points

Thanks for the clarification.

This should have beens stated in the errata sheet.

0 Kevin Song over 13 years ago in reply to Jens-Michael Gross

Prodigy 250 points

Thank you, Jens-Michael and Luis.

0 Kevin Song over 13 years ago in reply to Luis RC

Prodigy 250 points

Hi Luis,

Does TI has any working on fixing UCS10 on non-A version?

If yes, when will the new non-A version chip be availabe on market?

Thanks.

0 Jens-Michael Gross over 13 years ago in reply to Kevin Song

Guru 227245 points

Kevin Song said:
Does TI has any working on fixing UCS10 on non-A version?

The non-As are marked "not for new design", so I guess there will be no more fixes applied.

0 Luis RC over 13 years ago in reply to Jens-Michael Gross

TI__Genius 16840 points

Jens-Michael Gross said:

Does TI has any working on fixing UCS10 on non-A version?
The non-As are marked "not for new design", so I guess there will be no more fixes applied.

[/quote]

That is correct, we don't have any plans to create a new Rev of F5438. The device continues to be in production but TI does not recommend using the F5438 for new designs. The F5438A is not an exact equivalent but it provides a good option for replacement.

0 Kevin Song over 13 years ago in reply to Luis RC

Prodigy 250 points

Thanks, Luis.

One more question:

Is there any program / procedure provided by TI for user company to replace the existing stock of non-A version to A version chip considering this UCS10 error?

0 Jens-Michael Gross over 13 years ago in reply to Kevin Song

Guru 227245 points

Kevin Song said:
Is there any program / procedure provided by TI for user company to replace the existing stock of non-A version to A version chip considering this UCS10 error?

Not that I know of. The A is a different product, not a new (bugfixed) revision. The two coexisted and are still coexisting.
There is a migration appnote for those who want to switch.

However, thr non-A always was significantly cheaper than the A version. (and AFAIK still is - I didn't check lately)

**Attention** This is a public forum

MSP low-power microcontrollers

MSP low-power microcontroller forum

About the errata UCS10