[nickff]

A datasheet is a contract, not just documentation. If they put something on the datasheet, they need to write the document, then test the parameter, and guarantee that performance.

If I receive 10k of a part that does not satisfy specified performance parameters, I will return the reels, and never design that manufacturer's parts into any future product.

[garaetjjte]

Oh, surely they're not contracts. They're full of disclaimers like: "MICROCHIP MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND [..], RELATED TO THE INFORMATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ITS CONDITION, QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE."

And then they publish 50 pages errata including: "Ethernet functionality in 64-pin packages is not available."

...

[pantalaimon]

Well the Errata Sheet should be considered part of the data sheet ;)

Working with same54 has taught me to always also read the Errata Sheet when checking out a feature, I can only guess that there was a bit of a shake-up with the acquisition by Microchip that so many errors slipped in.

But those are at least consistent across chips.

[fest]

Not that STM32 is any different. Recently I designed around STM32F105 specifically due to it's ROM USB bootloader. Too bad I didn't read the errata which says no USB bootloader for 64 pin package.

[nickff]

Well, I can tell you that if 5% of the parts on a reel are out of spec, that reel is being returned for a full refund. Everyone treats the datasheet as a contract, whatever the small print may say.

This is also why parts can often perform well above their specified performance levels, and often have undocumented functionality; the manufacturers are happy to design in this performance, but they refuse to test and guarantee it.