• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 54 subscribers
  • Views 454 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.

CC1352P: Integrated RF Balun for both components CC2652P & CC1352P

Ofri Zamir
Prodigy 10 points
Part Number: CC1352P
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC2652P,

Hi,

I am trying to develop a new system with CC2652P or CC1352P as a replacement according to needs for sub 1GHz, and for the future CC2674P & CC1354P.

If I understood right the RF core are the same.

If I use LAUNCHXL-CC1352P-4 as reference.

I am planning on using the BT 2.4Ghz +5db with PCB inverter F Antenna,

For the Sub-1Ghz 433Mhz I am planning to use SMA connector, 

and for the 2.4GHz PA Output I am planning to use SMA connector.

I want to save place on PCB board and amount of components to assemble, using integrated RF balun.

I am looking for one integrated RF balun for both components that will give a good RF results for CC2652P & CC1352P.

1. Do you have RF combine Balun for 2.4GHz +5db & 433Mhz for example Johanson Technology, Murata ?

2. Do you have RF combine Balun for 2.4GHz PA & 433MHz for example Johanson Technology, Murata ?

3. Do you have induvial Balun for each channel 2.4GHz, 2.4GHz PA and 433MHz from the CC2652P & CC1352P ?

4. If all question above are not valid can I use the same antenna matching as in the LAUNCHXL-CC1352P-4 reference for both CC2652P & CC1352P ?

Thanks,

  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 18895 points

    Hi,

    Please see Section 8 of SWRA640 (CC13xx/CC26xx Hardware Configuration and PCB Design Considerations): https://www.ti.com/lit/swra640 which gives an overview of the available IPCs and links to the relevant Application Reports.

    1. LFB21433MDZ6F112 : https://www.ti.com/lit/swra629 
    2. We are planning to release a +20 dBm IPC for 2.4 GHz and a separate IPC for +20 dBm, 868/915 MHz. These will not be combined with 433 MHz so you would need two separate IPCs to cover these bands. We will update SWRA640 with the part numbers and the Application Report when this is complete. A 2.4 GHz, +10 dBm IPC is already released (LFB182G45BGEF296).
    3. There will be separate IPCs for these; please refer to SWRA640 linked above for the IPCs already released (2.4 GHz, +5 dBm and 433 MHz).
    4. The matching will depend on the size of the ground plane of your PCB and the bands you will be using. We recommend including a Pi network between the RF PA filter/matching section and the antenna to allow for tuning the antenna. Please see Section 6.2 of SWRA161 (AN058 – Antenna Selection Guide): https://www.ti.com/lit/swra161 and also SWRA726 (Antenna Impedance Measurement and Matching): https://www.ti.com/lit/swra726

    Regards,

    Zack

  • 0 in reply to ZC
    Prodigy 10 points

    Hello Zack & E2E team,

    Thanks for your quick replay,

    I have three more question,

    1st  Part number LFB21433MDZ6F112 does not exists, there aren't any to buy on the market.

    2nd Can I use the same balun for the 2.4GHz +5db and +20db or the maximum you have now +10db? (SWRA729 p.5)

    3rd I was reading somewhere that I can Use IPC1352 and changing the External Capacitor. C41 & C51 to 330pF instead of 100pF

    For using it with 433MHz instead of 863 to 930MHz ? (SWRA629a)

     

    Thanks again you did help my

  • 0 in reply to Ofri Zamir
    TI__Mastermind 18895 points
    1. It would be best for you to contact Preben Larsen from Murata directly about this. His contact email address is: plarsen@murata.com 
    2. If you mean using the same IPC for +5 dBm output and also +20 (or +10) dBm output at 2.4 GHz, this is not possible due to the different impedance matching requirements. Additionally, the +10/+20 dBm output at 2.4 GHz uses a different power amplifier inside the device (hence the different output pins) so requires a different layout for those IPCs.
    3. I have not seen this and am sceptical - I imagine the performance would not be optimised (at best). It is recommended to use an IPC designed for 433 MHz operation.

    Regards,

    Zack