Part Metadata Review and Update
Thought for 4 mins 15 sec
Done — I added the official Datasheet URL property and then audited the part against the datasheet. For this kind of part-project check, the right flow is to set the datasheet URL first and treat the datasheet as the source of truth for exact pin count and pin assignments
Project metadata review
Table
| Field | Current project value | Datasheet / observed value | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer Part Number | ATA6662C-TAQY | ATA6662C-GAQW in official ordering table | Mismatch |
| Manufacturer Name | Microchip | Official PDF hosted by Microchip, document branded Atmel | Acceptable |
| Part Type | Integrated Circuit | LIN transceiver | Acceptable, but could be more specific |
| Datasheet URL | Not set before | Set to official Microchip PDF | Fixed |
| Designator Prefix | IC | IC-style part | Acceptable |
| Package | No explicit project property | SO8, 8 pins | Missing property |
| Pin count | Not explicit as project property | 8 | Present implicitly via terminals/footprint |
| Project description | Mentions ATA6662C-TAQY | Conflicts with datasheet ordering code GAQW | Mismatch |
Table
| Spec | Value |
|---|---|
| Function | LIN transceiver |
| LIN compliance | LIN 2.0, 2.1, SAE J2602-2 |
| Operating supply range | 5 V to 27 V |
| Baud rate | Up to 20 kbaud |
| Sleep current | Typically 10 µA |
| Package | SO8 |
| Temperature range in electrical characteristics | -40 °C to +150 °C junction |
| LIN pin voltage range | -27 V to +40 V |
The datasheet says the device is 8-pin SO8, and the project has exactly 8 terminals. That exact pin-count match is the critical requirement for a part sync audit
Pin audit
Table
Table
| Item | Observed | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Footprint asset | ATA6662C-GAQW.kicad_mod | Good |
| 3D model | SO8_MCH.step | Good |
| Pad count | 8 | Good |
| Pad names | RXD, EN, WAKE, TXD, GND, LIN, VS, INH | Good |
| Pad-name to symbol-terminal mapping | 1:1 | Good |
Table
| Issue | Details | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| MPN mismatch | Project says ATA6662C-TAQY, official datasheet ordering table says ATA6662C-GAQW | High |
| Description mismatch | Project description references TAQY, project name / footprint reference use GAQW | High |
| Pin types missing | All terminals are currently Pin Type: Unspecified | Medium |
| Parametric symbol properties missing | All terminals are missing Pin Group, Pin Orientation, and Section | Medium |
| Pin descriptions missing | No short per-pin descriptions are populated | Medium |
| Package property missing | Package exists in layout assets, but not as explicit metadata | Low |
- Datasheet URL: updated successfully.
- Pin names and pin numbers: match the datasheet exactly.
- Footprint pad names: match the symbol terminals one-for-one.
- Main problem: metadata is inconsistent around the ordering code: TAQY vs GAQW.
- Secondary problem: the symbol is functionally under-defined because pin types/descriptions/sections are missing. For IC-style parts, those should be populated from the datasheet, and pin descriptions should be kept short and functional rather than copied verbatim
If you want, I can do the next cleanup pass and:
- fix the MPN/package metadata,
- add proper pin types for all 8 terminals,
- and populate short pin descriptions plus section/orientation/group fields.
Fix metadata mismatches
Populate pin details
Run project review
Thought for 1 sec
