Luminary Micro

Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Rickman wants the *PLL chapter*  to be modified and
> Atmel has decided not to modify the chapter,
> but instead include the restrictions in the *errata*.

You shouldn't put words in my mouth.  I said that if you don't have
plans to fix the bug, you should update the chapter.  You say you have
"plans", but I have been watching the power consumption for nearly a
year and still can not get a date for a fix.  Are you saying that they
are working on a fix?  Does Atmel understand why this bug exists?


> If the PLL is fixed in a new part, then exactly the same chapter can be used
> as is
> in the new datasheet, but the errata will be removed.
> This approach saves a lot of time, and if the earlier approach would be
> used,
> then the datasheet would be delayed significantly.
> No need to argue, this is a fact.

The fact is that you can reuse the chapter and change the errata, or
you could reserve eratta for things you plan to fix and keep the
chapters realistic (saving your customers design time).
No need to argue, this is a fact.

BTW, I don't appreciate all the assumptions you made about my thinking
regarding my other post.  I won't reply in detail since you clearly
don't know what I have done in my designs or my thinking. Enough said?
I have not been burned, I just know what I have been told about Atmel's
"commitment" to fixing errata and what I am observing, not to mention
your comments.

rickman wrote:
> Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> > Rickman wants the *PLL chapter*  to be modified and
> > Atmel has decided not to modify the chapter,
> > but instead include the restrictions in the *errata*.

"errata" is an error list therefore should be fixed at some point.
Otherwise it is not an errata but a feature.

<snip>

> > If the PLL is fixed in a new part, then exactly the same chapter can be used
> > as is
> > in the new datasheet, but the errata will be removed.
> > This approach saves a lot of time, and if the earlier approach would be
> > used,
> > then the datasheet would be delayed significantly.
> > No need to argue, this is a fact.

leaving as errata implies a fix is to be done.

> The fact is that you can reuse the chapter and change the errata, or
> you could reserve eratta for things you plan to fix and keep the
> chapters realistic (saving your customers design time).
> No need to argue, this is a fact.

too right.

cheers
jacko
http://indi.joox.net