Part Data Review and Update
1:55
Thought for 3s
Read BOM.
Read layout.
Read schematic.
Read layout.
Thought for 3s
Thought for a moment
Project metadata vs datasheet
| Field | In project | In datasheet | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPN | A121-001-T&R | A121-001-T&R | Match |
| Manufacturer | Acconeer AB | Acconeer | Match |
| Part type | Integrated Circuits | 60 GHz pulsed coherent radar sensor | Acceptable |
| Package | FCCSP | fcCSP50, 5.2 x 5.5 x 0.88 mm | Partial match |
| Pin count | Not explicitly stored as a property | 50 balls | Missing explicit property |
| Description | Project description says RF IC radar, 57 GHz to 64 GHz, 2.97 V to 3.45 V, 50-FCCSP | Datasheet says low-power, high-precision 60 GHz PCR radar, 57 GHz to 64 GHz, supplies include 1.71 V to 1.89 V rails plus VIO = 1.8 V or 3.3 V | Description is incomplete / slightly misleading |
Key specs from the datasheet
| Spec | Datasheet value |
|---|---|
| Device type | Low-power, high-precision 60 GHz pulsed coherent radar with integrated baseband, RF front-end, and antenna in package |
| Frequency range | 57 GHz to 64 GHz |
| Package | fcCSP50 |
| Package size | 5.2 x 5.5 x 0.88 mm nominal |
| Ball pitch | 0.50 mm typ |
| Ball diameter | 0.30 mm typ |
| Ball count | 50 |
| RF/digital core rails | VRX, VTX, VDIG = 1.71 V to 1.89 V |
| I/O rail | VIO = 1.71 V to 1.89 V for 1.8 V mode, or 2.97 V to 3.45 V for 3.3 V mode |
| Temperature | -40 C to 105 C |
| SPI clock support | Up to 50 MHz |
Mismatches / gaps
| Area | Finding | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Pin descriptions | The symbol terminals do not appear to store per-pin descriptions/comments from the datasheet | Medium |
| Pin types | All terminals are set to Pin Type: Unspecified instead of types like Ground, Supply, I/O, Analog, CLK | Medium |
| Pin grouping/sections | No datasheet-style grouping is stored for Ground / Supply / I/O / Analog / CLK | Low |
| Future-use pins | Datasheet notes several pins should be tied to ground, but that guidance is not encoded in symbol metadata | Low |
Gaps / possible mismatch
| Area | Finding | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Footprint naming | I could not see an explicit footprint/package name exposed in the layout data beyond the generic footprint container | Low |
| Dimensional verification | The available layout data did not expose pad coordinates or dimensions, so I could not numerically confirm 0.50 mm pitch, pad diameter, or body outline against the datasheet footprint drawing | Medium |
Welcome 👋
Flux accelerates your PCB design with AI.
Create your account to start using this component and bring your ideas to life.