Add the TPD4E1B06{DRL,DCK} type low leakage, bidirectional quad TVS.

[Doeme]

Add the TPD4E1B06{DRL,DCK} type low leakage, bidirectional quad TVS.

Datasheet: http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tpd4e1b06.pdf

---

All contributions to the kicad library must follow the KiCad library convention

Thanks for creating a pull request to contribute to the KiCad libraries! To speed up integration of your PR, please check the following items:

• Provide a URL to a datasheet for the symbol(s) you are contributing
• An example screenshot image is very helpful
• Ensure that the associated footprints match the official footprint library
  • A new fitting footprint must be submitted if the library does not yet contain one.
• If there are matching footprint PRs, provide link(s) as appropriate
• Check the output of the Travis automated check scripts - fix any errors as required
• Give a reason behind any intentional library convention rule violation.

[cpresser]

• The NC-Pin should be on the symbol outline (KLC S4.6)
• Description should be comma-separated, please add the package-name to the description. The package-name should be the latest item in the list
• Description is wrong, its a quad-channel device
• You can add infos like 0.7pF or 0.5nA leakageto the Description
• Pin-Number should not be part of the footprint-filter

[chschlue]

• Default FP DCK should be Texas_R-PDSO-G6 (also adjust the filter)

This is a standard MO-203AB / SC-70-6 / SC-88 / SOT-363 package.
http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/mpds114c/mpds114c.pdf
https://www.analog.com/media/en/package-pcb-resources/package/pkg_pdf/ltc-legacy-sc-70/SOT_6_05-08-1638.pdf
https://assets.nexperia.com/documents/outline-drawing/SOT363.pdf
https://www.jedec.org/sites/default/files/docs/MO-203C.pdf

Currently, both Texas_R-PDSO-G6 and SOT-363_SC-70-6 FPs are wrong.
How about fixing SOT-363 and going with that one, @cpresser?

[cpresser]

@Doeme next time, please do not force-push. It you just add a commit on top instead I can review the changes more easily.

@chschlue I agree. As of now, I don't have access to JEDEC documents yet to verify. Having a non-manufacturer specific footprint sound great. Afaik it should be possible to script it with the existing ipc_gullwing_generator.py

[cpresser]

Something with the part-numbers here is wrong.
In your first post the link goes to TPD4E1B06 which is a quad device.
The symbols also indicate a quad device.
But the datasheets in the symbol point to tpd2e2u06and tpd2e2u06 which are both dual channel devices.

[chschlue]

pointhi/kicad-footprint-generator#460

I take it there is currently no way to get SOT FP names right?

[poeschlr]

Well read the readme of the generator. It includes an option how to get a footprint name differing from the default.

[Doeme]

But the datasheets in the symbol point to tpd2e2u06and tpd2e2u06 which are both dual channel devices.

There should not be a datasheet link in the symbol, because checklib.py explodes if there is (KLC S6.2)
I think the editor adds it automagically, and probably botches that (which is a pain since I have to delete it every time I save the library)

@Doeme next time, please do not force-push. It you just add a commit on top instead I can review the changes more easily.

Understood.

[cpresser]

The data-sheets should be properly set. Add them in in the .dcm file. See here: KiCad/kicad-website#446

[myfreescalewebpage]

@Doeme are you still alive on this subject ? an you solve the branch conflict please to continue the review ?
@cpresser I see several issues on these symbol+travis errors to be fixed, I can have a look and suggest modification if you want

[Doeme]

Hello, yes, I'm still alive and well. I'll merge the master shortly.

[myfreescalewebpage]

Thanks, just ping when it is ready for review
@cpresser do you want to continue on this one ?

[cpresser]

@myfreescalewebpage It would be nice if you can this one over. Its not as simple as my other open PR. And I rather concentrate on footprints.

[myfreescalewebpage]

@cpresser no problem

[Doeme]

Sure! If I have not missed anything, it should be ready for review now...

[myfreescalewebpage]

@Doeme full review below:

TPD4E1B06DCK

• Description should ends with the package name, please add , SOT-363 at the end

TPD4E1B06DRL

• Where have found SOT-5X3 is SOT-563 ? I don't think this is a wildcard of TI. I think the footprint should be Package_TO_SOT_SMD:Texas_DRL0006A (not available in the lib) and the fp filter in this case: Texas*DRL0006A*
• Description should ends with the package name , Texas DRL0006A

Joel

[Doeme]

Description should ends with the package name, please add , SOT-363 at the end

Done, thanks!

Where have found SOT-5X3 is SOT-563 ? I don't think this is a wildcard of TI. I think the footprint should be Package_TO_SOT_SMD:Texas_R-PDSO-G6 (available in the lib) and the fp filter in this case: TexasRPDSOG6

Please see #2256 (comment) :

Currently, both Texas_R-PDSO-G6 and SOT-363_SC-70-6 FPs are wrong.
How about fixing SOT-363 and going with that one, @cpresser?

Hence "Package_TO_SOT_SMD:SOT-363_SC-70-6" should be right.

[myfreescalewebpage]

Sorry I haven't read all comment. I compared the sizes between the datasheet and the SOT-363 in the lib, and SOT-363 is too large for this device. The Texas R PDSO G6 is also too large too. In fact the proper package for this should be "Texas_DRL0006A" which need to be submitted because it is not in the lib. You can use the generator for this.

[myfreescalewebpage]

Updated my previous review with the correct fp

[Doeme]

ah, yes, I confused the two ics. remind me to do two pull-requests instead of one next time, differentiating between those two gives me massive headaches.

see the footprint pull request here KiCad/kicad-footprints#2485

[myfreescalewebpage]

lool yes me too at the beginning I confused the two !
It's generally better to have two pull requests. And for the reviewer it is also better because we can review one. Merge. Then review the other one and merge. Particularly when a single symbol block the PR because of missing footprint.
Will review the footprint asap.
Joel