Tool/software:
Please answer previous question instead of locking the thread
Tool/software:
Please answer previous question instead of locking the thread
Hi Joe,
The way TI refers to Functional Safety ratings is with Functional Safety-Capable, Functional Safety-Quality Managed, and Functional Safety-Compliant tiers.
Functional Safety-Compliant rating means that a product has went through a TI functional safety design process according to ISO 26262 / IEC 61508, often with internal diagnostics and safety mechanisms, has an accompanying functional safety manual, and has a functional safety certificate. These products have ratings like ASIL-B, ASIL-D, or SIL ratings on the component-level.
Functional Safety-Capable (which TPS4810-Q1 is rated as) means that a product has went through TI's quality-managed process as you mentioned, but it does not have an accompanying functional safety manual or functional safety certificate. These devices can still be used in safety systems, and TI provides FIT rates, FMD, and FMA to help designers achieve system-level ASIL / SIL ratings, but the ASIL or SIL rating is ultimately the responsibility of the system, not the device.
For more reference, I've attached two documents below - the first is a white paper on TI Functional Safety ratings (there is FS-Capable information on page 6) and the second is a white paper on using two FS-Capable components to achieve an ASIL-B system rating:
Does this information help answer your question?
Thanks,
Patrick
Hi Patrick,
Yes this is what I assumed.
However the wording "TPS4810-Q1 was developed using a quality-managed development process, but was not developed in accordance with the IEC 61508 or ISO 26262 standards" by itself removes such device from integration using either of these standards (until proven otherwise, which your message does now, thank you).
I believe a wording closer to "TPS4810-Q1 was developed using a quality-managed development process and can be integrated into safety systems at the care of the integrator. TPS4810-Q1 does not provide any safety function by itself." would help remove this ambiguity in the future.
Cheers,
Joe