• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 1064 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

Original question:

HD3SS3220: USB 3.0 C device to USB 3.0 device on the same PCA

HD3SS3220: HD3SS3220, TUSB211, TPS62082

Aleks
Prodigy 60 points
Part Number: HD3SS3220
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: TPS62082, TPS62080

Hello!

I need help for schematic review.

My application will works in UFP mode. I have a little confused about Fig.12 in the HD3SS3220 datasheet and "UFP dongle evaluation module user guide" Figure 6 (http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/sllu241a/sllu241a.pdf?ts=1591207700675) about pins: ID, VCONN_FAULT_N, CURRENT_MODE - does they need to be pulled up or floating?

This will work as passive device (in dead battery mode) 

My schematic:

In schematic one error in value - U1 TPS62080 is TPS62082

Many thanks

Regards,

Aleksejs

  • 0
    Prodigy 60 points

    Also I didn't understand about datasheet DIR pin specification what say DIR pin maximum rating is VCC33 +0.3 V (first screenshot)

    And in  "UFP dongle evaluation module user guide" DIR pins is pulled-up to the 5v (second screenshot).

  • 0 in reply to Aleks
    TI__Guru** 105055 points

    for 3220, it's better supply VDD5 with seperate supply , not from Vbus. You can float those pins if not being used, like ID, Vconn.

    DIR pin is 3.3v.

  • 0 in reply to Brian Zhou
    Prodigy 60 points

    Hi Brian,

    Thanks for clearing about DIR pin voltage.

    I do not have separate supply, this device will work for USB hub, so it's will be powered from host.

    Am I correct what this will be "Dead battery mode" in my situation?

    Regards,

    Aleksejs

  • 0 in reply to Aleks
    TI__Guru** 105055 points

    ok, that will work. its better to add cap on EN_CC.

    also adding 330nf on RX1/RX2 and remove C86/C87 on RX

  • 0 in reply to Brian Zhou
    Prodigy 60 points

    Hello Brian!

    Thanks for review.

    • Will be good with 47uF cap on EN_CC as in UFP dongle Design Note #3? 
    • Then I also need to remove also R40-R43 with C86/C87 on RX?
    • 330nF on RX1/RX2 also use 0201 size as for TX1/TX2 lines? Why I need to put caps also on RX1/RX2?This is some new suggestions?

  • 0 in reply to Aleks
    TI__Guru** 105055 points

    • Will be good with 47uF cap on EN_CC as in UFP dongle Design Note #3? (maybe 1uf)
    • Then I also need to remove also R40-R43 with C86/C87 on RX? (yes, it's only needed at connector side.
    • 330nF on RX1/RX2 also use 0201 size as for TX1/TX2 lines? Why I need to put caps also on RX1/RX2?This is some new suggestions? ( this is to prevent high common mode voltage from other side of the Type-C connector)