1
\$\begingroup\$

I couldn't find this part number after googling.. both chips appear to say:

NXP A42/3C EVG000 (or EV0000) nD921

but it's hard to read. Here's a pic below. I'm guessing they are the NXP TJA1042, despite the differing part numbers because the full NXP part number is TJA1042T/3/CM (emphasis mine.) Any other ideas?

enter image description here

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ TJA1042 are explicitly labelled "TJA1042". Also judging by the layout (hard to tell), it doesn't really look like a CAN transceiver. A better picture with less reflections and covering surrounding components would help. \$\endgroup\$
    – Lundin
    Commented Jun 30, 2022 at 6:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Pin-3 could be VCC and Pin-2 could be GND. Judging from the image I can say that the chips share these lines. But why would a designer route CAN lines underneath the IC? CANL of the IC to the left and CANH of the IC to the right goes directly to the connector. Well, if these are really CAN xceivers then the routing shouldn't have been done like shown. \$\endgroup\$
    – Rohat Kılıç
    Commented Jun 30, 2022 at 6:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Good points! I'll try to take a better and more complete picture tomorrow in the daylight. This is a module for a car, and there are no other CAN transceivers on the board (or in the microcontroller like the LPC11Cxx family has.) \$\endgroup\$
    – K_T
    Commented Jun 30, 2022 at 6:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What kind of PCB is that/what is its function? the info might help us identify it. \$\endgroup\$
    – Christianidis Vasilis
    Commented Jun 30, 2022 at 6:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RohatKılıç it looks like designer has the terminal pins in the wrong order for convenient wiring. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jasen Слава Україні
    Commented Jun 30, 2022 at 7:09

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
\$\begingroup\$

It's a TJA1042 "single source" according to this document.

enter image description here

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So it's a part older than that PCN from 2013? Also... anyone else getting deadly tired of "we will not tell you the part marking in the actual datasheet because that would make the datasheet useful"? \$\endgroup\$
    – Lundin
    Commented Jun 30, 2022 at 8:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Lundin Yes, there should be an international package marking database. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jeroen3
    Commented Jun 30, 2022 at 8:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.