Part Information Review and Update
Thought for 4 mins 42 sec
I reviewed the part project for ECMF2-40A100N6 against the currently set ST datasheet URL.
Summary
- Datasheet URL: already present, so no update was needed.
- Pin count: matches the datasheet at 6 pins.
- Symbol terminal names/numbers: match the datasheet pinout.
- Footprint: a 6-pad footprint exists, which is directionally consistent with the datasheet package.
- Main issues found:
- Project Part Type looks incorrect/misleading.
- All schematic terminals have Pin Type = Unspecified.
- Terminal pin descriptions are missing.
- I could not fully verify the exact land pattern geometry from the datasheet text extraction available here, so footprint verification is only partial.
Table
| Field | Current project | Datasheet cross-check | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPN | ECMF2-40A100N6 | Matches | OK |
| Manufacturer | STMicroelectronics | Matches | OK |
| Datasheet URL | Set | Official ST PDF already set | OK |
| Designator Prefix | FL | Reasonable for filter part | OK |
| Mount | Surface Mount | Matches μQFN package style | OK |
| Description | 2 line common mode choke, 100 mA, 3 Ω typ, -55 °C to 125 °C | Broadly consistent, but incomplete vs datasheet function | Minor issue |
| Part Type | Inductors | Datasheet describes a common mode filter with ESD protection, not a plain inductor | Mismatch |
- Package: μQFN-6L
- Pins: 6
- Function: common mode filter with ESD protection for high-speed differential interfaces
- Protected lines: 2 lines / 1 differential lane
- DC serial resistance: 3.0 Ω typ
- Max RMS current: 100 mA
- Reverse working voltage: 5 V
- Breakdown voltage: 5.3 V min, 5.8 V typ
- Capacitance: 0.25 pF typ, 0.40 pF max
- ESD robustness: ±9 kV contact, ±20 kV air
- Operating temperature: -55 °C to +125 °C
The datasheet pinout and the project symbol align as:
Table
| Pin | Datasheet function | Project symbol | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | D+ to connector | Present | OK |
| 2 | D- to connector | Present | OK |
| 3 | GND | Present | OK |
| 4 | GND | Present | OK |
| 5 | D- to IC | Present | OK |
| 6 | D+ to IC | Present | OK |
What matches:
- 6 terminals present, matching the datasheet pin count.
- Pin numbering appears consistent with the datasheet.
- Terminal naming is sensible and matches functional intent.
What needs improvement:
- Every terminal is currently set to Pin Type: Unspecified. For a datasheet-driven part audit, pin metadata should be explicit and exact. The recommended workflow is to use the datasheet as the single source of truth, match pin count exactly, and flag any missing pin metadata rather than guessing
- Suggested pin types:
- Pins 1, 2, 5, 6: Passive
- Pins 3, 4: Ground
- Pin Description properties are missing and should be added with short functional labels, per the part-sync guidance
What I could verify:
- The layout contains a Footprint with 6 pads, which is consistent with a μQFN-6L package.
- So the footprint is structurally plausible.
What I could not fully verify:
- I do not have enough extracted mechanical-package detail here to confirm:
- exact body size
- pad pitch
- pad dimensions
- recommended land pattern
- courtyard/silkscreen accuracy
So the footprint result is:
- Pad count: OK
- Exact package geometry: not fully verified
Table
| Severity | Issue | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| High | Part Type = Inductors | Datasheet describes an ESD-protected common mode filter, not just an inductor |
| Medium | All pins are Unspecified | Reduces symbol quality and downstream ERC usefulness |
| Medium | Pin descriptions missing | Makes the part less clear and less reusable |
| Low | Description is incomplete | It omits the ESD-protection role and package |
| Low | Footprint geometry not fully verified | Need package drawing / land pattern to fully confirm |
A better project description would be:
- Common mode filter with ESD protection for one high-speed differential lane, μQFN-6L, 100 mA max, 3.0 Ω typ, -55 °C to +125 °C
- Core identity: correct
- Pin count and pin naming: correct
- Footprint pad count: correct
- Metadata quality: needs cleanup
- Exact footprint mechanical compliance: still needs a package-drawing check
If you want, I can next fix the project metadata and terminal properties:
- change Part Type
- add proper Pin Type values
- add Pin Description values
- optionally improve the project description
That follows the standard part-project datasheet-sync workflow for pin/property completion
Fix metadata and pins
Verify footprint geometry
Review another part
To get started, talk to Flux or create a New Document.
Welcome 👋
Flux accelerates your PCB design with AI.
Create your account to start using this component and bring your ideas to life.