Find a datasheet with an error in it?
Rant about it here....
Someone didn't check if their vector graphics formatted correctly. Try implementing this example circuit as it looks like it's shown.. Good luck...
Someone didn't check if their vector graphics formatted correctly. Try implementing this example circuit as it looks like it's shown.. Good luck...
What? All it needs is a bidirectional transistor and a resisuctor! :-//
CH32V003 MCU Reference Manual (V1.3), it states that the reset value of bit 15 ("PA12_RM") in register AFIO_PCFR1 is "0", while in fact it is "1".
If you're going to use pins PA1 or PA2 as regular GPIOs, you'll have to change it back. Ask me how I know |O
CH32V003 MCU Reference Manual (V1.3), it states that the reset value of bit 15 ("PA12_RM") in register AFIO_PCFR1 is "0", while in fact it is "1".
If you're going to use pins PA1 or PA2 as regular GPIOs, you'll have to change it back. Ask me how I know |O
Are you sure about that? ??? I have a design using a CH32V003 that uses both PA1 & PA2 as GPIO and I've never had to touch the AFIO_PCFR1 register, which implies that the default reset value of PA12_RM is indeed zero.
Also, v1.5 of the Reference Manual (published recently on 20th July) has no changes to the description of PA12_RM compared to v1.3.
// Enable clock for ports A,C,D
RCC->APB2PCENR |= 0x00000034;
// For PA1/2 as GPIO, disable Crystal functionality
AFIO->PCFR1 &= ~0x00008000;
GPIOD->CFGLR = 0x44444441; // PD0 = Red
GPIOA->CFGLR = 0x44444144; // PA2 = GreenAbsolutely sure, and verified yet again after reading your reply.
This utter nonsense from TI
He could, but it doesn't take long to figure out.This utter nonsense from TI
:-// You could say what you're reacting to...
It's literally circled. Any significant current basically never passes through the body diodes as both MOSFETs are always in the same ON or OFF state. The only time some current could pass is during state change. It's an utter incompetency of someone who has drawn that as minimum. And as it's a "Basic SSR theory", this garbage has found it's way in many other places.This utter nonsense from TI
:-// You could say what you're reacting to...
There are several misrepresentations, but the basics are fine i.e. it turns on when it's on and it's off when it's off. They don't mention diode drops so they might as well not exist.
There is an awful lot I see, still, of people putting diodes in parallel with MOSFETs, even with the new fangled symbols with the back diode drawn beside the thing already. Well, there's no accounting for poor education I'm afraid; no amount of my saying appnotes are trash, has made a lick of difference, nor complaining to the manufacturers that keep representing things so poorly. The only thing we can do, is guide others to the truth, as we meet them, preferably with humility and grace. Whether they figure out, or accept, the truth, is their own matter.
Tim
but the basics are fine i.e. it turns on when it's on and it's off when it's off.Except it describes HOW it works which is totally screwed up.
Also using TSSOP20 package here, with the HSI oscillator, and not using the SPL/HAL, nor even the default start-up code (I changed it not to call HAL's SystemInit() and to disable PFIC HPE).
Ugh, that's it. I stepped over the code from the top, and startup_ch32v00x.S does call SystemInit, which calls SetSystemClock, which tries to set the clock to 48MHz HSE and meddles with AFIO->PCFR1 along the way. I just didn't notice that call before. So you were right, it's not a Datasheet error. Thank you for helping clearing that up :-+
Here's a funny one from an old datasheet.
HA-2520 opamp:
Original Harris datasheet (correct)= https://docs.rs-online.com/5e64/0900766b80029c41.pdf (https://docs.rs-online.com/5e64/0900766b80029c41.pdf)
Intersil datasheet (wrong)= https://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/177417/INTERSIL/HA2-2520-2.html (https://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/177417/INTERSIL/HA2-2520-2.html)
New Renesas datasheet (correct)= https://www.renesas.com/us/en/document/dst/ha-2520-ha-2522-ha-2525-datasheet?r=505396 (https://www.renesas.com/us/en/document/dst/ha-2520-ha-2522-ha-2525-datasheet?r=505396)
Right in the second paragraph of the banner spec description they got the slew rate units wrong. 120V/ms instead of 120V/us. How does that make it through review? At least they fixed it in the Renesas version.
Its not an error exactly.. but the PCB Footprint is shown from the BOTTOM VIEW!!!?????? Who does that?
https://www.kycon.com/Pub_Eng_Draw/STX-3000.pdf (https://www.kycon.com/Pub_Eng_Draw/STX-3000.pdf)
Yep i had a similar thing happen to be with a SPDT relay, where they show a bottom view in the PCB layout drawing. WHY....That is common with relays (because of point to point wiring?) and never surprised me as I worked with an engineer who used many of them in the early 1980s. Here is the pinout of a mechanical relay that came out a few years ago:
The RRC filter in the DS will never work for a Type 2 PLL, but was copied from the original DS to the Motorola DS and uncritically propagated to the next generation 74HC4046 DS.
https://www.kycon.com/Pub_Eng_Draw/STX-3000.pdf (https://www.kycon.com/Pub_Eng_Draw/STX-3000.pdf)Well, gazillions of those cheap jacks are used in cheap devices whose (often extra-thin, often phenolic) PCBs are manufactured in such large volumes that the holes are not drilled and milled, but punched. And for those, rectangular holes with square corners are no problem.
... Also WTF square PCB holes with 90deg corners????
Funnier still, it turns out that this part is actually just a PIC microcontroller (their own bread-and-butter product!) and it had been programmed and then been locked down and had it's markings changed to disguise it's nature. Unbelievable!
My favourite datasheet failure is one that bit me a couple of years ago. I wanted to use a Microchip MCP2221 part, which is a simple USB to RS-232 interface. Couldn't be simpler right?
So the chip did work a couple of times, but then it quickly became obvious that it was complete garbage. A chip that requires no manual configuration completely failing at it's ONE JOB! :palm:
So I dug deeper and found there was an errata document for this chip. This document basically said that "the chip doesn't initialise it's internal registers properly. Don't use it! Buy this one instead!"
Errata for the MCP2221: https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/aemDocuments/documents/OTH/ProductDocuments/Errata/80000742A.pdf
As of right now, some big distributors are still unaware of this problem! |O
The MCP2221A DOES work properly and totally solves the problem.
Funnier still, it turns out that this part is actually just a PIC microcontroller (their own bread-and-butter product!) and it had been programmed and then been locked down and had it's markings changed to disguise it's nature. Unbelievable!
I actually was expecting this. Why bother with making a custom design if one can just use a cheap OTP mcu for that? Esp. with such a profit margin. $2 in qty1000, c'mon!
...
The number of times I've had no trouble implementing serial ports myself in micro's...
...
The number of times I've had no trouble implementing serial ports myself in micro's. AND they had the nerve to charge a premium for these busted, janky parts and STILL DO!
My favourite datasheet failure is one that bit me a couple of years ago. I wanted to use a Microchip MCP2221 part, which is a simple USB to RS-232 interface. Couldn't be simpler right?I can see an argument for using a new part number for bug-fixed versions, e.g. where workarounds have been implemented which would be incompatible with the fixed version, or to make it easy to differentiate the fixed version, but in cases like this it seems insane to not obsolete the old version - sounds like something stuck in a corporate policy of never obsoleting things.
So the chip did work a couple of times, but then it quickly became obvious that it was complete garbage. A chip that requires no manual configuration completely failing at it's ONE JOB! :palm:
So I dug deeper and found there was an errata document for this chip. This document basically said that "the chip doesn't initialise it's internal registers properly. Don't use it! Buy this one instead!"
Errata for the MCP2221: https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/aemDocuments/documents/OTH/ProductDocuments/Errata/80000742A.pdf
As of right now, some big distributors are still unaware of this problem! |O
The MCP2221A DOES work properly and totally solves the problem.
My favourite datasheet failure is one that bit me a couple of years ago. I wanted to use a Microchip MCP2221 part, which is a simple USB to RS-232 interface. Couldn't be simpler right?I can see an argument for using a new part number for bug-fixed versions, e.g. where workarounds have been implemented which would be incompatible with the fixed version, or to make it easy to differentiate the fixed version, but in cases like this it seems insane to not obsolete the old version - sounds like something stuck in a corporate policy of never obsoleting things.
So the chip did work a couple of times, but then it quickly became obvious that it was complete garbage. A chip that requires no manual configuration completely failing at it's ONE JOB! :palm:
So I dug deeper and found there was an errata document for this chip. This document basically said that "the chip doesn't initialise it's internal registers properly. Don't use it! Buy this one instead!"
Errata for the MCP2221: https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/aemDocuments/documents/OTH/ProductDocuments/Errata/80000742A.pdf
As of right now, some big distributors are still unaware of this problem! |O
The MCP2221A DOES work properly and totally solves the problem.
They could at least put a big warning banner on the datasheet.
TI does it too. I had to press an FAE for answers, they wouldn't post as such in the e2e thread, but turns out the UCC256303 is internally NRND. Why they don't tell marketing to say the same, I have no clue. It sure goes further to paint them as an incompetent company.https://www.ti.com/product/UCC256303 (https://www.ti.com/product/UCC256303)
I haven't heard any good reasons why they shouldn't. Mind, I have heard possible reasons. Just not good ones.
But, perhaps those same (bad) reasons, are why MCP doesn't for this one.
Tim
TI does it too. I had to press an FAE for answers, they wouldn't post as such in the e2e thread, but turns out the UCC256303 is internally NRND. Why they don't tell marketing to say the same, I have no clue. It sure goes further to paint them as an incompetent company.This can be a difficult situation for a silicon vendor. You have part B that is both better and has a higher profit margin than part A. Should you mark part A as NRND, keep fullfilling orders for existing designs, push B hard, and move on? Well if someone is currently designing part A into something high volume, you might want to hold off on the NRND notice for a while. Rocking the boat makes no sense, unless you are getting to the point of being unable to produce the thing.
I haven't heard any good reasons why they shouldn't. Mind, I have heard possible reasons. Just not good ones.
But, perhaps those same (bad) reasons, are why MCP doesn't for this one.
Tim
TI does it too. I had to press an FAE for answers, they wouldn't post as such in the e2e thread, but turns out the UCC256303 is internally NRND. Why they don't tell marketing to say the same, I have no clue. It sure goes further to paint them as an incompetent company.https://www.ti.com/product/UCC256303 (https://www.ti.com/product/UCC256303)
I haven't heard any good reasons why they shouldn't. Mind, I have heard possible reasons. Just not good ones.
But, perhaps those same (bad) reasons, are why MCP doesn't for this one.
Tim
Pretty clearly NRND.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ltc2644.pdf (https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ltc2644.pdf)Seems pretty reasonable to me for reflow soldering. I assume you’re referring to the 5.1mm total footprint height vs. the 4.9mm of the part. But the 5.1mm is given as a minimum.
The "Recommended Solder Pad Layout" is the absolute minimum width. It's ridiculously small compared to the part.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ltc2644.pdf (https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/ltc2644.pdf)Seems pretty reasonable to me for reflow soldering. I assume you’re referring to the 5.1mm total footprint height vs. the 4.9mm of the part. But the 5.1mm is given as a minimum.
The "Recommended Solder Pad Layout" is the absolute minimum width. It's ridiculously small compared to the part.
The datasheet for TI TPS92201A (https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tps92201a.pdf), a step-down/buck converter for driving parallel LED backlights:
...
It is impossible to use, unless you mount the SOT563 upside down.
The example also blithely ignores the fact that the LEDs are supposed to be connected between FB and the other end of the inductor connected to SW.
In the Application Information sections, section 8.2.2.2 is copy-pasted from some other TI step-down regulator datasheet, and even has the feedback sense voltage wrong: it's just 99mV for this chip, not 600mV = 0.6V. It's the only part that mentions a voltage divider, for example.
There is usually an E2E form post about errors in TI datasheets, but I searched and I didn't see one for this part. Probably worth posting something there to give people a heads up.I also checked for a datasheet feedback form, but didn't find one for TPS92201A.
Not in the slightest, IMHO.There is usually an E2E form post about errors in TI datasheets, but I searched and I didn't see one for this part. Probably worth posting something there to give people a heads up.I also checked for a datasheet feedback form, but didn't find one for TPS92201A.
Anyway, since you prodded, I registered and posted it here at e2e.ti.com power management forum (https://e2e.ti.com/support/power-management-group/power-management/f/power-management-forum/1562464/tps92201a-errors-in-datasheet-including-example-layout). I just hope the feedback isn't too harsh.
It's not just a u & m font mixup. Checkout the resistor divider at the bottom left!Yeah, also 170mF inductors obviously should come with 3.8kW resistors. 2015 datasheet for comparison:
Wrong font perhaps ? :popcorn:I don't think that wrong font can magically replace μ->m, Ω->W.
Sure it can! Not everything was originally Unicode. ;)Wrong font perhaps ? :popcorn:I don't think that wrong font can magically replace μ->m, Ω->W.
This is fucking ridiculous, did TI hire an AI to edit old datasheets or what? In 2025 MC33063A datasheet uH inductances and uF capacitance replaced with mH and mF all over the place. Same typical schematics with same numbers as in older versions with with mH, mF.Nah. It’s not AI. I’ve seen the same problems in some other TI documents, and it’s the same font mapping issue.
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/datasheet-errors-387247/?action=dlattach;attach=2687621;image)
This is a breakthrough: a tiny sot-23 can dissipate over one horse power. Or is it to-268? Although, with junktion-to-case resistance 0.15 C/W, I see it's possible, in theory, to dissipate 830W and not hit the maximum temperature... Though that 0.15 C/W is a bit a of a sus.Looks more a like web crawler found a trash document that should not have been publicly available. Barely any specs filled in there. Here's a real datasheet https://en.sekorm.com/doc/583659322.html
https://en.ark-micro.com/upload/202407231641121.pdf
But the one that really brings my blood to a boil is CD4046/MC14046/74HC4046.
I had to go out and find "Phaselock Techniques" by Gardener ($100) and spend a week reading before I realized that the DS was lying to me (plus a TI app note, apparently written by an apprentice with very limited knowledge of PLLs).
No wonder that so many people are frustrated with this part.