Do you have a local FAE that drops in every few weeks to discuss issues? I'd think that bringing this up with them would be a pretty direct method to get this back to the factory. Bob Axtell wrote: John Temples wrote: > On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Pearce, AB (Alan) wrote: > > >> I guess a "nasty note" to the MChip errata department is in order then. >> Point out that it was a chance discovery by someone else looking at >> another chip errata, and these have the same problem. >> > > There apparently isn't an "errata department", as I learned by wasting > a half day discovering that the "I2C data recognized as address" > errata applies to parts other than just the ones it's documented for. > It seems that different app engineers are responsible for different > part families, and each app engineer is responsible for the > corresponding errata documents. As such, errata documentation quality > varies. > > -- > John W. Temples, III > I will find out Monday or Tuesday. In general, I am disgruntled that we have to dig these things out on our own. Its cost me a pretty penny to find these things out by grueling tests. I am beginning to think that TI is looking better and better... --Bob -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist