• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1 reply
  • Subscribers 63 subscribers
  • Views 249 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.

TPS7B86-Q1: OCP behavior

Yuta Kurimoto
Genius 10685 points
Part Number: TPS7B86-Q1

Hello Team,

From the datasheet, The TPS7B86-Q1 has Brickwall scheme for the overcurrent protection.

However my customer prefer foldback scheme because foldback dissipate less thermal compared with Brickwall.

Q. What is the reason why you chose Brickwall for TPS7B86-Q1? If I get to know its advantage, I will be able to convince customer to use Brickwall.

Q. In my understanding, primary LDO often have Brickwall scheme, secondary LDO often have Foldback scheme. Do you know what is the reason?

Thanks,

Yuta Kurimoto

  • 0
    TI__Expert 7035 points

    Hi Kurimoto-san,

    There is no specific reason why one has foldback and the other doesn't. The main reason that the off-battery LDO ended up with a brick wall current limit was that we had several customers who were worried about the LDO getting stuck in the fold back current limit if they put large amounts of capacitance on the output of the LDO. 

    This typically is not as big of a concern with secondary LDOs and customers are more willing to accept a fold-back current limit here.

    Regards,

    Mark