• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 64 subscribers
  • Views 356 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TPS65381A-Q1: Any known issues with the TPS65381A chip?

1138
Expert 1226 points
Part Number: TPS65381A-Q1
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TMS570LC4357

Hello,

Are there any known issues with the TPS65381A-Q1 chips?  There is no errata document listed on the product page.

--thx

  • 0
    TI__Genius 10885 points

    No errata will be published for the TPS65381A-Q1, and it is not categorized as NRND. Is there a particular concern with the device?

    Best Regards,

    Rick S.

  • 0 in reply to Richard Solarski
    Expert 1226 points

    Hello Rick

    By "no errata will be published for the TPS65381A-Q1", you mean that there are no known issues, correct?  Or do you mean that there may or may not be any known issues, but that if there are, you don't plan on using the errata format for notifying customers about them?

    Our concern with the device is that it is a fundamental part of safety-related functionality in our hardware.  As such, it is crucial that we be aware of any known issues with the device, even if we have not encountered any during our own development and testing, and even if they are considered by others to be "minor" (because the severity of the impact from an issue might be different in our specific application).

    --thx

  • 0 in reply to 1138
    TI__Genius 9380 points

    This part is used in many safety critical designs with no issues. it is a very stable product.

    That being said, every part has a few quirks that make it unique. A tremendous amount of time has been put into the data sheet to explain how this part functions, quirks and all. Every aspect of this part has been covered in the data sheet, including options to get the functionality that you want from the part.

    After several years of supporting this part there are no new issues that we are aware of that the data sheet won't cover. The reason there is no errata for this part is that in order to be a safety part, all issues have to be addressed, not just reported.

    This part can't be sold as a safety part if it had known problems. I think you are safe to move ahead with this IC.

  • 0 in reply to Gordon Varney
    Expert 1226 points

    Hello Gordon,

    Thank you for following up on my query!  It is good to know that there have not been any reported issues beyond what is already captured in the data sheet.

    I am not concerned about the appropriateness of using the TPS65381A for a safety-related application.  We've been using it and the TPS65381 for some years now, and are comfortable continuing to do so.  I apologize for implying otherwise.

    However, it is entirely possible that there are latent issues with a chip, even years after the release.  There are certainly some (minor) problems with the TPS_Driver support code in the SafeTI library, which presumably is code other people have been using for years.  (I'll report the ones I haven't already reported in a bit.)  It is an important part of our due diligence to explore what other people might have encountered, and sometimes you never find out if you don't ask.  This happens to be a relevant time point in our roadmap to ask.

    I'm not quite sure what to make of your comments about errata sheets and not being able to sell a safety part if it has known problems.  For reference, note that the published errata for the TMS570LC4357 has over 40 "known design exceptions to functional specifications" listed.

    My own takes on these things are that updating a data sheet versus issuing an errata is an internal policy decision, and the decision about whether or not to stop shipment on a part is a tough call requiring a careful analysis, preferably following a defined process, which is not nearly as simple as "this is a safety part and there is a known problem".

    I will note that publishing issues in an errata sheet adds a useful level of visibility.  Would we have realized the impact of the PMOS leakage in the Hercules MCU's ADC inputs when two ADC modules have sampling periods that overlap if it had only been in the MCU's data sheet?  Potentially, but it doesn't have to be a Hobson's choice.

    Anywho, thanks for following up.

    --thx

  • 0 in reply to 1138
    TI__Genius 9380 points

    I agree with your assessment. I am not saying that you can't have an errata sheet on a safety part. Only that if you have an errata, you have to address the issue, to determine if this problem will cause issues in other parts of the IC. In the case of a processor or controller, they have found an issue, determined that it wont cause an issue in other parts of the IC, so publishing the issue in the errata is an acceptable method of addressing the issue.

    Much of this is because if an I2C port doesn't function properly then it wont meet the standard and has to be reported as errata.

       We also address any issues, and then we make sure that the data sheet addressess the proper functionality and use of each aspect of the power supply. if used according to the data sheet then there is no errata, just a definition of how to use the part.