On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 11:54, Baltissen, GJPAA (Ruud) <ruud.baltissen_at_apg.nl> wrote: > > Though they changed the masks which was expensive > > I can see only one reason: the result saved money in some way, enough to > justify the costs. > Perhaps only one mask changed, which is a lower cost than changing all. As it changes the bond pads, it just might have been necessary because of some change to the bonding or packaging process. Or, it improved yield, which as you say, saves money. Or, just possibly, it improved reliability, with the same result. > - they didn't want to introduce new part numbers. > > If a factory had to change the type number of a car for every small change > during production, then we had to get customed to something like Ford Focus > T394. > If the chip behaves the same logically, perhaps there's less of confusion in not bumping the revision number. It's not uncommon to distinguish major and minor revisions, although I see no other revision counters on the die. Cheers EdReceived on 2020-05-30 00:28:33
Archive generated by hypermail 2.3.0.