Benefit of TPL bus compared to isolated CAN for battery monitoring

[fab_]

Hi NXP community

I'm curently working on battery monitoring systems (BMS) and I came across NXP's MC33664 / MC33771 cell monitoring components using the company specific communication bus TPL. Now I'm wondering what are the actual benefits of using TPL instead of isolated CAN communication  bus which is the automotive standard and provided at most cell monitoring IC's on the market. Hence, in my opinion I would be more flexible with CAN.

Do I overlook a strong argument for selecting TPL? Can I profit by choosing TPL for future developments?

I'd love to get some convincing statements by the community. The more opinions, the better.

Best regards

Fabian

[BillDuley]

Resurrecting old thread!

I too am in automotive and am well familiar with CAN. The differential nature of TPL looks VERY similar to CAN... but the TPL is using sine waves as opposed to CAN's square waves? I can see this could be beneficial relative to ringing noise?

Perhaps TPL does not require all the configuration of CAN (baud speed, Time Quanta, addressing, DLC...)?

Like the original poster's question... what problem is TPL solving that existing serial communication haven't answered (UART (LIN), CAN, SPI, I2C...)?

[guoweisun]

Hi

You can see below features of MC33664 TPL mode:

•     2Mpbs Isolated Network Communication Rate
•     Dual SPI Architecture for Message Confirmation
•     Robust Conducted and Radiated Immunity with Wake-up
•     3.3V and 5.0V Compatible Logic Thresholds
•    Low Current Sleep Mode with Automatic Wake-up
•    Sine Wave Transmission for low Radiated Emission

[fab_]

Thank you guoweisun,

beside the last feature, aren't those basically the same features I would have with a CAN interface? I'm pretty sure NXP had its reason to introduce its own communication bus. What makes TPL special compared to CAN?

I'm sorry for beeing provocative, but I'd like to understand the concept of NXP behind introduing TPL. I'm also guessing that's an important question also other engineers are confronted with when chosing an IC for battery monitoring.

Best regards

Fabian Vogl

[wgthompson]

Fabian, I am in the same boat - did you ever find an answer to your existential question? Why should we burden ourselves with yet another protocol when CAN is tried and true?