• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 52 subscribers
  • Views 455 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.

CC2590: CC2590/CC2591 with CC8520

servet ayok
Prodigy 95 points
Part Number: CC2590
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC8520, , CC2591, CC2592

Hello,

I am designing a board based on CC8520 with external CC2590. The design is based on swrr079.

However, in the future, I may need higher output power, so I would like to make a design which is compatible with both CC2590 and CC2591.

Are CC2590 and CC2591 directly replaceable?

Should I add anything else in the design?

Regards.

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 317180 points
    If you need higher output power than CC2590 can provide, use CC2592. CC2591 is not recommended for new designs. CC2590 and CC2592 are not pin compatible.
  • 0 in reply to TER
    Prodigy 130 points

    Hello,

    Thank you for your answer; but the original question seems not answered.

    The question is (slightly rephrased) if the CC2591 is drop-in compatible with CC2590 or that modifications are required.

    I, too, have created a design based on evaluation kit PCB (even using the TI provided gerbers), but am struggling with poor range with CC2591 in place:

    6 meters indoors line of sight, while AN089 "Real World Range Testing Using CC85xx" suggests even with CC2590 10 meters should easily be possible.

    So while I appreciate the pointer CC2591 is NRND, would still like to understand if it is drop-in replacement for CC2590 and, considering PCBs are already made, is even recommended to replace CC2590.

    (or better stick to CC2590?)

    Much appreciated,

    Koen

  • 0 in reply to Koen Smeets62
    TI__Guru**** 317180 points
    It depends on how you have made the PCB since CC2591 has AVDD_PA1 on pin 1 but on CC2590 this pin is unused.

    As can be seen from the schematics the traces to the power pins act like inline inductors and CC2591 performance is sensitive to the layout since the layout sets the value for these inductors. Hence it's easier to get a design that are tuned for CC2591 to work with CC2590 than the other way around.
  • 0 in reply to TER
    Prodigy 130 points

    Thank you for your reply, TER.

    As mentioned, I used the Gerbers as shared by TI;

    now taking another fresh look at the schematic I see there is a capacitor to pin 1 that is only to be populated when C2591 is used.

    So I am good for the PCB layout (plus on the boards where I used CC2591 I did populate this capacitor).

    So on to the next potential source less-than-expected range, which is apparently the number of slave devices the master is configured to expect.

    (currently have set it to 4 with only 1, sometimes 2 slaves for testing).