the hits that link it probably got DCMA'd or taken down after the fact.
-
-
-
that information itself (part number mappings) doesn't seem like it would be eligible for copyright protection?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
that is probably exactly what happened
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Maybe Apple/TI employees bookmarked that link in Chrome.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
sounds like an RCA part :P
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I regularly make fun of Google for knowing the mapping of Google's super secret own internal code names to public products when the codenames are nowhere to be found on the public page. Not sure what they index for that one.
-
I regularly type code names into Google instead of the internal search engine, as well as full queries of stuff with them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They are not 100% equivalent though. It's more than just a remarking. CD321Xs can't just be swapped by their TI TPSxxxxx equivalent. Likely, there are some differences in their i2c protocol that makes CD321Xs specific in the way they talk to the SMC (or to the M1 now, I guess)
-
One way to find out. Decap both chip types and if those dies are the same then you need to extract the ROM/flash data from it. And compare that data.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
More likely they crawled pages that were supposed excluded with a robot.txt entry. They won’t show you those pages, and risk getting caught, but they gathered the information anyway.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.