Adam Wang wrote: > yes, according to page 5, it should be 100nF, but didn't review on both > difference of test circuit.
Ah, so what I stumbled upon was a mismatch between the component in the schematics and the one in the BOM. I hadn't noticed that. > How about we still keep the p/n both in schematic to identify their > difference, but remain 10nF ? You mean use the SO5032 but with 10 nF instead of the recommended 100 nF ? Sounds like an unnecessary risk. > How about as mentioned below ? > http://downloads.qi-hardware.com/people/adam/m1/tmp/m1r4/Misc_20120314.pdf Looks good, but I'd make two changes: 1) instead of C120/10nF and C120/100nF, I'd write C120 = 10nF, etc. 2) I'd remove or change the "In practice ..." sentence. If we use SO5032 with 100 nF, it becomes unnecessary. If we use the SO5032 with 10 nF, it should explain why. > btw, indeed there are more improvements in the future while design > verification to be suffered from crazy mistakes I had made. Heh, I'd say you're doing extremely well :) - Werner _______________________________________________ http://lists.milkymist.org/listinfo.cgi/devel-milkymist.org IRC: #milkymist@Freenode
