TPSM365R6: Recommended land pattern issues. What is the correct footprint?

adsfsadfadsfda

Part Number: TPSM365R6

Tool/software:

I have a similar question to the following thread. The thread was marked as resolved, but I am still having issues understanding the recommended footprint.

https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management-group/power-management/f/power-management-forum/1398534/tpsm365r6-solder-mask-layer-check-and-max-voltage?tisearch=e2e-sitesearch&keymatch=TPSM365R6#

The datasheet specifies that NSMD (non-soldermask defined) is the "preferred" style. However, the drawing appears to use SMD style. For example, how is pin 10 supposed to be laid out in an NSMD style? The drawing also has a lot of issues where it is almost impossible to calculate the location that the larger pads without lots of backcalculating.

Is the drawing just mistaken that NSMD pads are recommended and should instead require SMD?

8 months ago

0 Richard Fu22 8 months ago

TI__Mastermind 28130 points

Hi,

I believe the recommendation should still prefer NSMD, but the drawing is given in SMD for ease of reference.

For pin 10, I believe you would take the solder mask opening, and then reduce by 0.05 all around to get the NSMD equivalent.

Thanks,

Richard

0 adsfsadfadsfda 8 months ago in reply to Richard Fu22

Prodigy 90 points

I ended up doing something similar, but as footprints become more and more non-standard, I really believe they should include drawings for the exact recommended footprints rather than having us guessing. IPC standards and "footprint wizard" type footprints are much less applicable to components like this.

0 Richard Fu22 8 months ago in reply to adsfsadfadsfda

TI__Mastermind 28130 points

Hi,

Understood. We'll consider on how to update the drawings in the DS for future parts. Appreciate the feedback.

Thanks,

Richard

Power management

Power management forum

TPSM365R6: Recommended land pattern issues. What is the correct footprint?