Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TPS65982, , TPD6S300, BQ25895, TPD6S300A
We are using the TPS65982 as our PD-controller and discovered that our TVS diodes are not enough to protect its CC1 & CC2 pins in short-to-VBUS events. This has lead us to find your TPD2S300 and TPD6S300(A) CC protection ICs. We prefer to use the TPD2S300 over TPD6S300(A) since it is simpler for our application and is more cost-effective, but we are not sure if our requirement to supply VCONN is met by TPD2S300.
We are using the BQ25895 in our application, and its PMID pin is supplying PP_CABLE and PP_5V0 of the TPS65982.
We do not have a 8.7V to 22V supply in order to allow the TPD2S300 to enter its low resistance mode, although we would still like to be able to supply VCONN when necessary.
Since our device is a DRP that can sink or source VBUS, we are not targetting to be able to supply devices over VCONN (VPDs), but rather supply VBUS if the other device negotiates as a PD sink.
However, we intend to support DisplayPort alt mode and would likely need to be able to supply VCONN in passive cables with an e-Marker inside them. We would like to be able to support USB-C to DP captive cables.
Given our application, with the requirement to be able to support USB-C to DP captive cables, would we still be able use the TPD2S300 with VM=LDO_3V3=3.3V when supplying VCONN for such condition or would we have to go with TPD6S300(A) instead? Would TPD2S300's R_ON be too high for us to be able to properly supply VCONN in this situation?
Given that we don't need to supply VPDs and don't necessarily have to support active cables, do we still need to be able to supply 1 Watt over VCONN if need to be able to use USB-C to DP captive cables for example?
Best regards,
Eric
