VL53L5CX Power Consumption

[DBonh.1]

Hello @John E KVAM ,

Table 14 in the datasheet shows power consumption in Autonomous as going as low as 4.5 mW, but is this only the AVDD power? or total device power? Because I do measure low power draw at those levels, but only on the AVDD pin (and those power levels vary with sample rate, per the datasheet). But the IOVDD continues to draw 22 mA at 3.3v in addition to a few mA for the VCSEL on AVDD. 

I'm pretty sure the device is really in Autonomous because calling vl53l5cx_get_ranging_mode() returns a '3' for Autonomous. But I'm unable to turn off that big power suck on the IOVDD pin. I was hoping this part could be a low-power motion detector, but if I'm stuck with ~100 mW or more then it's not very low power.
One issue might be that I'm using threshold detection. Is that what keeps the core digital stuff drawing power? Can I run a low-power Autonomous mode if I don't set thresholds?
Another possible issue is that calling vl53l5cx_get_power_mode() returns a comms error with a pwr mode value of 5 (should be 0 or 1 for Wakeup or Sleep). Does this indicate a problem?

[Anne BIGOT]

Hello,

The table 14 is showing the total power consumption in autonomous mode and not only the AVDD power.

Which configuration are you using ? It should be 4x4 mode - 1Hz frame rate with 5ms integration time.

Regards

Anne

 

[DBonh.1]

Phew! I was scared because we've spent a lot on dev assuming that table showed total device power.
I'm testing with 4x4, 1Hz and 5ms, and I'm setting it to autonomous, it reports autonomous, but I'm still measuring 22 mA draw on the IOVDD pin. 
If I turn off active ranging then the device power drops down to match Table 14. But with ranging off I don't get an interrupt out when objects are detected inside of the thresholds. We're hoping to get object detection interrupts out while consuming only 4 mW of total power. Is this possible?

[DBonh.1]

@Anne BIGOT  Thanks Anne,  We're about to throw a lot of dev resources at finding our problem. But before we spend big bucks I'm hoping you can confirm that there is a solution. Can you please confirm that the device really can monitor for objects within threshold distances and output an interrupt while operating with total device consumption in the 4 mW range? (assuming low sample rates and integration times). Thanks!! -Doug

[mathewwade21]

Based on the information provided, it's not explicitly clear whether the power consumption values in Table 14 are specific to AVDD or represent the total device power. To resolve this, you may need to consult the datasheet or technical documentation provided by the manufacturer. It's common for datasheets to specify power consumption figures for different power domains or components within a device.

[DBonh.1]

Exactly! That's why I'm asking the manufacturer! And Table 14 IS the datasheet! And if you read the thread, you will discover that the manufacturer (Anne Bigot) replied to say that Table 14 is total device power. But she hasn't yet quite clarified whether the device can operate and generate interrupts in threshold mode while drawing only the current shown in Table 14. 

[DBonh.1]

@Anne BIGOT @John E KVAM  Hello Anne or John,  We're still hoping to know if a VL53L5CX can operate with the total device power consumption in Table 14 (4.5 mW at 1Hz, 5ms, autonomous), and still be able generate interrupts when objects are detected within threshold distances. I haven't been able to reduce the IOVDD current below 25 mA (83 mW) even though the device says it's in autonomous mode. I can hit 4.5 mW if I turn off ranging. But if I turn off ranging then I don't get interrupts from detections. 

[DBonh.1]

Hello @Anne BIGOT @John E KVAM , I might have stumbled onto the problem. It seems that the device was hung because of a previous pending interrupt, and it wouldn't go into true Autonomous mode until I read the data one more time with vl53l5cx_get_ranging_data(). When I made one more call of vl53l5cx_get_ranging_data() before putting my host processor to sleep, then IOVDD drops way down. Is this consistent with your understanding?  Sorry for the bother!! Thanks, Doug