• State Resolved
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 63 subscribers
  • Views 64 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

TPS22811: vs TPS25947 VIN and VOUT Routing — Why Different Approaches for Similar Packages?

Nir Alon
Intellectual 640 points
Part Number: TPS22811
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TPS25947

Tool/software:

Hello all,

I’m using the TPS22811 and TPS25947 in two different projects, and I noticed that the recommended layout examples for these two parts (Figures 10-1 and 11-1 in their respective datasheets) use very different VIN/VOUT routing strategies:

  • The TPS22811 layout shows VIN/VOUT being routed into the IC from two separate traces on opposite sides.

  • The TPS25947 layout routes VIN/VOUT from a single wide connection, entering at only one point.

Since both devices are in a similar WSON/QFN-style package with exposed pads, I’m curious:

  1. What is the reason behind using two entry points for VIN/VOUT in one case and a single-point, plane-fed approach in the other?

  2. Can the TPS25947 be safely routed using dual-entry like TPS22811, or is single-point recommended to maintain current sense / protection accuracy?

Thanks in advance!

Nir

  • +1
    TI__Mastermind 38085 points

    Hi Nir,

    Nir Alon said:
    What is the reason behind using two entry points for VIN/VOUT in one case and a single-point, plane-fed approach in the other?

    TPS22811 is 10A device whereas TPS25947 is 5.5A device so it is always better to have best current distribution (better in dual entry) but it becomes even more crucial when the device is higher current device. 

    Nir Alon said:
    Can the TPS25947 be safely routed using dual-entry like TPS22811, or is single-point recommended to maintain current sense / protection accuracy?

    Yes, TPS25947 can also be routed like TPS22811. In fact, dual entry provides better current distribution. 

    Best regards,
    Arush

  • 0 in reply to Arush Gupta
    Intellectual 640 points

    Hi Arush,

    Thanks for the clear explanation — that makes sense.

    Given that dual-entry offers better current distribution and is acceptable for both devices, I’ve decided to go with dual-entry on both the TPS22811 and TPS25947.

    I admit it's partly a technical choice… and partly because my OCD can’t handle using two different layout strategies for parts that look the same on the board Sweat smile.

    One style to rule them all!

    Appreciate your help.

    Best regards,
    Nir