Hi community,
Our partner have a question about MMPF0100 connection.
Pelase see Table 4 of MMPF0100 datasheet (Rev.9.0).
It explains about VINREFDDR as following.
=====
VREFDDR regulator input. Bypass with at least 1.0 uF decoupling
capacitor as close to the pin as possible.
=====
However, in MCIMX6DQ-SDP schematics (SPF-27392_C3.pdf), the capacitance for VINREFDDR is less than 1.0 uF since two 0.1 uF capacitors are connected in series.
And 1.0 uF is connected to VREFDDR instead of VINREFDDR.
Which is correct?
Best Regards,
Satoshi Shimoda
Solved! Go to Solution.
Hi Satoshi
necessary capacitance is provided from DDR_1V5 side (connected to
VINREFDDR on SPF-27392 p.19). Also from MMPF0100 p.26 :
Table 20. VREFDDR External Components..
VREFDDR -- 1.0uF
footnote 30
VINREFDDR to GND, 1.0 uF minimum capacitance is provided by buck regulator output.
Best regards
igor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: If this post answers your question, please click the Correct Answer button. Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Satoshi
necessary capacitance is provided from DDR_1V5 side (connected to
VINREFDDR on SPF-27392 p.19). Also from MMPF0100 p.26 :
Table 20. VREFDDR External Components..
VREFDDR -- 1.0uF
footnote 30
VINREFDDR to GND, 1.0 uF minimum capacitance is provided by buck regulator output.
Best regards
igor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: If this post answers your question, please click the Correct Answer button. Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi igor,
Thank you for your reply.
OK, I understood the 1.0 uF to VREFDDR is OK.
And according to your reply, I understood the 1.0 uF capacitance written in footnote 30 is provided by C566, C571, C577, and C560 in SPF-27392.
Is this correct?
Best Regards,
Satoshi Shimoda
Hi Satoshi
yes, correct.
Best regards
igor