• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8 replies
  • Answers 4 answers
  • Subscribers 17 subscribers
  • Views 401 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

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.

TMUX646: Device recommendation 3:1

David Huang
Intellectual 2285 points
Part Number: TMUX646
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TS5MP645, , SN74CBT16214C, TMUX1309, TS5A3357, TMUX1308

Hi Team

My customer is looking for a MIPI MUX to switch between 3 cameras to connect with their MCU.

I checked on our portfolio but only found TMUX646 and TS5MP645 which are both SPDT.

Do we have any solution that supports 3:1 application? If no, could you make a comparison between TMUX646 and TS5MP645 to help the customer decide which one to use?

Regards

  • 0
    Guru 275410 points

    You could use any general-purpose mux that supports the required voltage and bandwidth.

    The SN74CBT16214C is a 3:1 12-channel mux, but it requires a 5 V supply, and 200 MHz is probably not enough. There are 4:1 muxes like the TMUX1309 (500 MHz), but only with two channels, so you'd need multiple ones.

  • 0 in reply to Clemens Ladisch
    TI__Intellectual 2285 points

    Hi Clemens

    Thanks for the response.

    Let's say if the customer feels the bandwidth does not meet their requirement and decide to go with either or TMUX646 and TS5MP645.

    Any difference worth noting between these 2 devices expect for the bandwidth?

    Regards

  • 0 in reply to David Huang
    Guru 275410 points

    When using two 2:1 muxes, there is a path where two muxes are in series. Their on-resistance and capacitance will add up, so the possible bandwidth is reduced.

    The TMUX is the more modern device with higher bandwidth, lower power consumption, better ESD protection, and lower price. In any case, the TMUX646 and TS5MP645 are pin compatible.

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 30043 points

    Hi David,

    I have linked a recent MIPI FAQ here that gives MIPI switch recommendations, however, all 4 recommendations are 2:1 multiple channels. I know we are ideally aiming for a 3:1 switch, but if the customer decides to go for a 2:1 solution, the FAQ can help pick a switch with sufficient bandwidth and voltage range. 

    As for 3:1 solutions, the best I can recommend is the TS5A3357 3:1 1-channel switch. This switch however has a bandwidth of 334MHz at 5V, and at 3.3V supply 327MHz. For most MIPI solutions, we usually try to aim for the ~1GHz range. 

    As for the TMUX646 and TS5MP645, these devices are p2p compatible and have slightly different package types (nFBGA and DSBGA respectively). Ron is slightly different. BW for TMUX646 is much higher at 6GHz, while TS5MP is ~2GHz. I agree with Clemens' statement about TMUX series being newer generation of devices, lower cost, etc. I recommend TMUX646 over TS5MP645.

    Clemens mentioned a few devices which could work if it fits the customer's application requirements. TMUX1309 could be a decent pick but you will need 2 of them. A single TMUX1308 (1-channel, 8:1, 500MHz) could work, but most of the device will be unused. 

    Please let me know if this helps!

    Regards,

    Tyler

  • 0 in reply to Tyler Townsend
    TI__Intellectual 2285 points

    Hi Tyler

    I notice that you mentioned TMUX1308 could work for 3:1 but the TMUX1308 only has 8 channels while the MIPI requires 3channels minimum for each device when used as C-PHY right?

    In that case I think the customer will still need 2 TMUX1308 to drive 3 cameras. Could you elaborate a bit about how to make it work using a single device?

    Regards

  • 0 in reply to David Huang
    TI__Mastermind 30043 points

    Hi David,

    My bad. Disregard the TMUX1308 solution that I suggested. For some reason, I glanced over the fact that you are attempting to drive 3 individual cameras. 

    We currently only have four 3:1 configuration devices. I still stand behind the TS5A3357 if you can manage with 300MHz of bandwidth. You will need multiple of these devices since it is only 1 channel device. 

    Also choose TMUX646 over the TS5MP645. 

    Regards,

    Tyler

  • 0 in reply to Tyler Townsend
    TI__Intellectual 2285 points

    Hi Tyler 

    Thanks for the info!

    Could you share a comparison between TMUX646 and TS5MP645? My customer thinks TS5MP645 is better over the TMUX646 regarding the size.

    Regards

  • 0 in reply to David Huang
    TI__Mastermind 30043 points

    Hi David,

    TMUX646 TS5MP645
    IDD  30uA 30uA
    RON_HS 6 ohm

    2.45 ohm
    RON_LP 6 ohm 2.65 ohm
    RON_flat_HS 0.1 ohm 0.1 ohm
    RON_flat_LP 0.9 ohm 0.9 ohm
    ION -0.5uA < ION < 0.5uA -0.5uA < ION < 0.5uA
    Bandwidth 6 GHz 2 GHz
    CON  1.5pF 1.5pF

    (VIHmin, VILmax)

    		 (1V, 0.4V) (1.425V, 0.5V)

    Features

    Powered-off protection

    Low power disable mode

    1.2V logic compatible

    Powered-off protection

    Low power disable mode

    1.8V logic compatible 

    Package Types

    		 nFBGA (ZEC), 2.45mm x 2.45mm DSBGA (YFP), 2.42 mm x 2.42mm)

    Here is a quick side by side comparison of the two devices. I agree with the customer, the TS5MP645 is a smaller device but not by much. 

    The ball grid array pins should line up between the two devices. The TMUX646 will have a bit more package overhang than the TS5MP645, but this will be a very small amount.

    Please let me know if you have any more questions.

    Regards,

    Tyler