TPS53667: TPS53667 with CSD95372BQ5M application

Hi Ken,

The CSD95372BQ5M power stage is compatible with the TPS53667 controller so you can use it for this application. I'll have to check and see if there's a reference design using the two parts together but if there is I will make sure to get it to you.

In the meantime the connections would be the following:

CSD95372 -> TPS53667

IOUT -> CSPX

REFIN -> VREF

PWM -> PWMX

TAO/FAULT -> TSEN

FCCM -> SKIP#-NVM (This only needs to be routed to Phase 1 since that's the only phase that would enter DCM)

Once I find out about a reference design I'll get back to you. If you need anything else before then please let me know,

Cheers,

Carmen

Hi Carmen,
Thanks for you promptly reply and detail description about CSD95372 vs. CSD95490, we are looking forward to have reference design circuit(TPS53667+CSD95372) or help to review schematic if no reference circuit.

Regards,
Ken

Hi Carmen,

Thanks for your kindly help and could you give me a email then I can reply to you with attach schematic reviewing?

This is for MT3258 NEPHOS corepower application.(0.85V/200A)

Regards,

Ken 

Hey Ken,

I just sent you a friend request so we can share contact info privately.

Thanks,

Carmen

ESX601-54RQ-MAIN-20170509a.part02.rarHi Carmen

Sorry for Ken is vacation this week, may you pls help review layout as attached?

                                                                                                   Bogey

Sure, I'll download it and get back to you with my feedback.

Hi Carmen

Sorry for total 2 files, upload again. sorry for customer push, pls help ~~

                 Bogey

ESX601-54RQ-MAIN-20170509a.part01.rar4477.ESX601-54RQ-MAIN-20170509a.part02.rar

Hi Bogey,

Can you please send the files again in another format or contact me through the PM function of the friend request I sent and we can arrange another way to share the files? All three .RAR files so far are refusing to unpack and uncompress without corruption.

Thanks,

Carmen

Hi Carmen

My customer us webench to run TPS53667 in 8~14Vin, Vout=0.85V/180A. but we can't turn to we request 0.85V.

because my customer change power stage from CSD95490Q5MC to CSD95372BQ5M.

so i am not sure if the circuit still can work. may you pls help double check?

                                                                Bogey

webench_design_1617073_9_135345093.pdfESX601-54RQ_0P85V - EDITS.pdf

Hi Bogey,

Can you please give me a bit more information on what you would like me to check out for you? Both power stages are compatible with the TPS53667 and should work for this application. Also, can I have the latest schematic version with the edits I suggested made please?

Thanks,

Carmen

Hi Carmen

Now we meet is we expect Vout voltage is 0.85V, but customer now measure is 1.7V.

May you have advise to us for check first?

                                                           Bogey

Hi Bogey,

Assuming the NVM resistors haven't changed at all from the schematic version I have the programming resistors are not set correctly to give a Vboot = 0.85V. Going through the datasheet design guide and assuming you want to stay on the VR12.0 VID table, the following resistors should be changed:

R2366 -> 44.2kOhm
R2367 -> 56.2kOhm
R2359 -> 20kOhm

This should give you the correct 0.85V boot voltage.

Thanks,

Carmen

Hi Carmen

May you have some suggestion for us?

1. ESX601-54RQ_201700511-TI POWER.pdf is customer current schematic

   Original the TPS53647 circuit output (1V) is not correct .when we follow WEBENCH

   Change   R2318 value from 39K2 to 100K and R2586 value from 26k7 to 68k1

   The output will be correct (1.03V)

    

   2. So far we duplicate this rule to TPS53667 circuit .change R2366 and R2367 are always get wrongs output (2V)

                            When we using your suggestion value on R2366 and R2367 .the output is still wrongs (2V)

   3.

   if RADDR =20K, the VID table should be VR12.5. is that right?

   , if there have some mistake in Datasheet, May you having correct value?

    

                                                     Bogey0474.ESX601-54RQ_0P85V - EDITS.pdfESX601-54RQ_201700511-TI POWER.pdf0407.webench_design_1617073_9_135345093.pdf

Hi Bogey,

Let's back up a bit so we're both on the same page and we can figure this out. It looks like we're changing a few too many things at once. If you could please answer a few questions for me that would be a big help in picking your resistor values.

1) What VID table would you like to work from, VR12 or VR12.5?
1A) With the current value of Rmode (R2360) are the other settings it controls correct according to Table 79 of the datasheet?
2) What voltage are you trying to boot to? Originally you said 0.85V but then above you said 1.03V is correct.

Going through the calculations for the resistors in the latest schematic (-TI POWER), you've currently configured a VID code of 96h and VR12.0 for a 0.995V output at startup.

Thanks,

Carmen

Hi Carmen

                 Now currently status: All power voltage is output correct

                   TPS53667-output 0.85V follow WEBENCH modify some resistor R2367=56K2, R2366=64K3

                  TPS53647-output 1.03V follow WEBENCH modify some resistor R2318=100K, R2586=68K1

                  In order to control components we plan to use same inductor on our design .Inductor as Attached

(INDUCTOR; MHCC12050-R47M-R7;CHILISIN)for TPS53647 and TPS53667.

we want check if use MHCC12050-R47M-R7 in our design, is there have any risk?

TPS53667 is 12Vin/0.85Vout 190A

TPS53647 is 12Vin /1.03C/130A

                                                             Bogey

ESX601-54RQ_201700609-TI power .pdfInductor-MHCC Series.pdf

Hi Bogey,

Glad to hear you got the voltages figured out.

Looking at the inductor, I think it should be fine for both rails. Under normal operating conditions it doesn't look like you're hitting the datasheet limits.

If you need any other help please let me know.

Carmen

Hi Carmen
So this inductor (MHCC12050-R47M-R7)can be use in TPS53667/TPS53647 application?
Bogey

Hi Bogey,

Yes, the inductor should be fine for both rails so long as the OCP threshold is set below the inductor saturation point.

Carmen