Running BMI160 at 2.5V instead of the "typical" 3.0V... any reason not to do this?

[IDEngineer]

We're designing the BMI160 into an existing product that already has a 2V5 supply rail. The BMI160's spec sheet says that running it at 2V5 is well within spec, but all of the examples refer to a 3V0 supply as being "typical". Is there any reason that a 2V5 supply is UNdesireable? Generally we try hard to run parts at the recommended or example supply voltages. In this retrofit case it would be very convenient to use the existing 2V5 rail, but not if the part really works better in some way with a 3V0 supply.

I submitted this as a technical query, which has worked in the past, but this time I received an automated repsonse saying "please use the forums".

Thanks!

[kgoveas · Accepted solution]

Hi IDEngineer,

There is no difference between running at 2.5V or 3.0V. Most reference implementations are based on 3.3V so as to easily interface with third-party boards that already are fixed at 3.3V.

Regarding technical queries, as of February 2019, all technical queries will be handled via our forum.

Regards,

kgoveas

[IDEngineer]

Thank you for your response! The examples in the spec sheet show 3V0, not 3V3, but I get your point. It will be very helpful to run the part at 2V5, thank you for confirming there are no operational differences at that supply voltage.