Timeline for How critical is it to declare the manufacturer part number for a component within the BOM?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
3 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 31, 2020 at 20:13 | comment | added | supercat | ...would be specified based upon when it reached the low and high ends, respectively, of the output-switching range. That would make it possible to guarantee correct interoperation between fast and slow parts if the maximum sampling threshold for the downstream parts was less than then minimum output-switching threshold of the upstream parts, and the clock slew rate was controlled if necessary to ensure that the downstream device would sample old data before the upstream device could possibly change it. | |
| Dec 31, 2020 at 20:09 | comment | added | supercat | Unfortunately, many specification for parts are written too loosely to allow correct behavior to be guaranteed based upon specifications alone. I've seen quite a few parts, for example, where the required minimum hold time was less than the guaranteed minimum propagation time. Robust circuit design could have been much easier if clocked devices specified two ranges of threshold, such that setup time would be specified relative to when clock reached the low-end of the sampling range, hold time relative to when it reached the high end of that range, and minimum and maximum propagation times... | |
| Dec 29, 2020 at 11:58 | history | answered | Peter Smith | CC BY-SA 4.0 |