• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 19 replies
  • Subscribers 64 subscribers
  • Views 359 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

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.

TPS25751: PD issue

Jeff YANG
Mastermind 7865 points
Part Number: TPS25751
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: BQ25792

Tool/software:

Hi,

We have occur IEC62680 issue. We are work with Raymond for a few time. 

The eye diamgram issue we are trying 220pF to re-test agian.

But for other item need your help since iy urgent case.

Here is JSON file/VIF and LOG file please kindly have your time to review and give us some suggestion. thanks!

TPS25751_Toprock_Updated_v04 (3).zip

Project Name

SGN-TP-12242401 IEC 62680 on BT 20

Company

Test Log

http://share.graniteriverlabs.com.tw/sharing/U78bXZJJE

Test Item

Port A

Remark

Merged USB PD3 CTS

LeCroy

Fail

0327_v04 VIF & FW

TEST.PD.PHY.ALL.02: The Eye parameters did not meet the requirements.
TEST.PD.PHY.ALL.05: The total BIST message must have been 13362. 26724 BIST message detected.
TEST.PD.PROT.SRC.08: The UUT did not send a Hard Reset signal after the max of tVCONNSourceOn in the PD2 mode.
TEST.PD.PS.SRC.01: The UUT VBUS voltage was not within the limits of vSrcNew or vPpsNew or vAvsNew.
TEST.PD.PS.SNK.01: The UUT requested PDO is not part of VIF PDO list.
COMMON.CHECK.PD.3: The UUT did not respond to the Tester message with a right GoodCRC.
COMMON.CHECK.PD.5: The UUT was not allowed to send Hard_Reset signal./The UUT unexpectedly performs an Error Recovery.
COMMON.CHECK.PD.7: In a Fixed PDO in a Source Capabilities message, bits B21:B20 (Peak Power) did not match the vendor value.
COMMON.CHECK.PD.12: In a Fixed PDO in the Sink Capabilities message, the current represented by bits B9:B0 did not match the vendor value.
COMMON.CHECK.PD.14: The VBUS voltage was not in valid range of initial voltage before tPSHardReset min (25ms).
COMMON.PROC.PD.7: The UUT should have not sent a Discover Identity/SVIDs Request message when Attempts_Discov_SOP = NO.
  • 0
    TI__Mastermind 37855 points

    Hi Jeff,

    Are they only testing on the Lecroy tester, or are they testing on both a LeCroy and GRL PD compliance tester. Wondering if they see the same test failures on both testers as the testers are known to sometimes have issues.

    Please give me a couple days to review these and provide initial feedback.

    Thanks and Regards,

    Chris

  • 0 in reply to Christopher Lim1
    TI__Mastermind 37855 points

    Hi Jeff,

    Here is some initial feedback for the open items. I need to test some things up in lab tomorrow.

     0331 Notes.xlsx

    Thanks and Regards,

    Chris

  • 0 in reply to Christopher Lim1
    Mastermind 7865 points

    Hi Chris,

    You mean you will test the FW and VIF with your device in your side?

    Here is schematic for you reference. thanks!

    And For COMMON.PROC.PD.7 issue, do you know what is the function for? 

    COMMON.PROC.PD.7 The UUT should have not sent a Discover Identity/SVIDs Request message when Attempts_Discov_SOP = NO. Does the customer want to support this bit? If yes, just enable in VIF (PD capabilities) Waiting customer response

    Thanks!

    Jeff

  • 0 in reply to Jeff YANG
    Mastermind 7865 points

    Hi Chris,

    For below 2 issue do you know why have this fail item? is it can waive or we can doing some adjust? Thanks!

    TEST.PD.PS.SNK.01 The UUT VBUS voltage was not within the limits of vSrcNew or vPpsNew or vAvsNew.

    Not seeing this specific issue
    COMMON.CHECK.PD.14 The VBUS voltage was not in valid range of initial voltage before tPSHardReset min (25ms). Pending
  • 0 in reply to Jeff YANG
    Mastermind 7865 points

    Hi Chris,

    We have check this item is tester issue. thanks!

    The total BIST message must have been 13362. 26724 BIST message detected. Not sure what this is even checking. Seems to be a multiple of 2? Ask if a tester issue.
  • 0 in reply to Jeff YANG
    TI__Mastermind 37855 points

    Hi Jeff,

    Jeff YANG said:
    You mean you will test the FW and VIF with your device in your side?

    Yeah, I will test on the EVM. Realize this is not a 1:1 comparison and does not guarantee I can test everything on my end. It should hopefully get me closer.

    Jeff YANG said:
    And For COMMON.PROC.PD.7 issue, do you know what is the function for? 

    When we are a DFP, we can send a discover ID message. It's mainly if they are doing data and alt modes, or want VID/PID info from a far end device. If they don't need any of this (which is likely the case), I can try disabling it. If they want it, they need to change the "Attempts_DISCOV_SOP" VIF field.

    It's going to be difficult for me to replicate the Test.pd.ps.src tests on my setup, so may need customer to test these.

    See attached for updates.

    For Test.PD.PS.SRC.01, how is PP5V and the BQ being powered? Is there a batter attached during testing? Is there internal power?

    0402 Notes.xlsx

    Thanks and Regards,

    Chris

  • 0 in reply to Christopher Lim1
    Mastermind 7865 points

    Hi Chris,

    For this item we followed previous E2E owner Raymond set 0x37 to enanble. Should we set this bit to disable?

    TEST.PD.PS.SNK.01 Need to retest, For some reason it is requesting .75 for 20-V instead of 1-A The customer has "Autonegotiate Sink 0x37", Auto Compute Sink Min Power set to Host controlled. Why did they set this? It seems to affect this test.
    To fix this test, set this field to "PD Controller will compute"
    After I changed this, test still failed, but now seems to be a tester issue. Says that PDO not in VIF, but 20-V/1-A is in the VIF 

    For PP5V power I will update later.

    Thanks!

    Jeff

  • 0 in reply to Jeff YANG
    Mastermind 7865 points

    Hi Chris,

    PP5V is fixed at 5V output by another Buck group, while also supplying power to USB-A.
    The power path for PDO 1 can choose between PP_5V1 or PPEXT1. For us, either option should be fine, right?
    Thanks!
  • 0 in reply to Jeff YANG
    Mastermind 7865 points

    Hi Chirs,

    This item customer have no furthur concern, I've change it to Attempts_Discov_SOP = YES to check can solve this issue? Thanks!

    COMMON.PROC.PD.7 The UUT should have not sent a Discover Identity/SVIDs Request message when Attempts_Discov_SOP = NO. Does the customer want to support this bit? If yes, just enable in VIF (PD capabilities)
    Customer: What is this for?
    TI: When we are a DFP, we can send a discover ID message. It's mainly if they are doing data and alt modes, or want VID/PID info from a far end device. If they don't need any of this (which is likely the case), I can try disabling it. If they want it, they need to change the "Attempts_DISCOV_SOP" VIF field.
  • 0 in reply to Jeff YANG
    TI__Mastermind 37855 points

    Hi Jeff,

    Jeff YANG said:
    For this item we followed previous E2E owner Raymond set 0x37 to enanble. Should we set this bit to disable?

    Do you know why? Unfortunately, I don't know why Raymond asked you to set this bit, if you can share the reasoning I can maybe add some comments.

    Jeff YANG said:
    PP5V is fixed at 5V output by another Buck group, while also supplying power to USB-A.
    The power path for PDO 1 can choose between PP_5V1 or PPEXT1. For us, either option should be fine, right?

    Yes and No. If the PP5V buck can support PDO1 max power and the BQ is configured to also support PDO1 max power, you should be fine. If one of them doesn't, than you have to be careful.

    Jeff YANG said:
    This item customer have no furthur concern, I've change it to Attempts_Discov_SOP = YES to check can solve this issue? Thanks!

    Yes, this should fix this specific failure.

    Jeff, could you update the Excel spreadsheet with your feedback? It makes the multiple items a little easier to track.

    Thanks and Regards,

    Chris

  • 0 in reply to Christopher Lim1
    Mastermind 7865 points

    Hi Chirs,

    please see the excel sheet as below. Thanks!

    8814.0402 Notes.xlsx

  • 0 in reply to Jeff YANG
    TI__Mastermind 37855 points

    Jeff,

    Any updates on the capacitor testing? Also can you share the layout? Feel free to share it over the email if there are concerns about sharing on a public forum.

    Can you also share the latest JSON you have with the modifications?

    8814.0408 Notes.xlsx

    Thanks and Regards,

    Chris

  • 0 in reply to Christopher Lim1
    Mastermind 7865 points

    Hi Chris,

    Sangean trying to provide partial of CC layout since they have concern about provide all layout file. Will provide it later.
    And they get feedback from GRL side information said PD controller can adjust some parameter to fix eye parameter issue. But I didn't find any register about this. Do you have any idea? Or it should relative with HW layout?

    And below is the JSON file that I tried to follow your comment to modify. But this build have not send to GRL to test.

    They hope we can provide a version that we are more confident will pass all tests before proceeding with testing.

     6560.0408 Notes.xlsx

    TPS25751_Toprock_Updated_v05.zip

  • 0 in reply to Jeff YANG
    TI__Mastermind 37855 points

    Thanks Jeff,

    I'm still reviewing the open items and will get more feedback tomorrow.

    The layout is interesting. CC cap placement looks fine, does the GND plane have vias to the bottom layer ground plane? The CC lines seem a bit long, but not sure if that would cause issues. Will need to check with team for additional review.

    We do not have registers to adjust eye parameters taht I know of. I have not seen failures with these tests in the past.

    Thanks for the JSON, working on an improved version.

    I'm still waiting for feedback from the FW team on the one item mentioned in the spreadsheet.

    Thanks,

    Chris

  • 0 in reply to Christopher Lim1
    TI__Mastermind 37855 points

    0410Notes_TI.xlsx

    Still no updates from the FW team for the one item.

    The issue with PD.PS.SNK.2 seems to be functional. During the PRSWAP, the PD does not send a source caps message, but it seems to be due to a customer specific issue as I don't see it on an EVM.

    Can you ask them if they ever change the power for PP5V? Is it always enabled or ever lost?

    Unfortunately we will not be able to get them a "perfect" passing config, but hopefully some of the failures should be addressed with the json and vif changes.

    They should still retest with your latest json/vif combo and i'll work with the team on the open issues.

    Thanks and Regards,

    Chris

  • 0 in reply to Christopher Lim1
    TI__Mastermind 37855 points

    Just saw some of the E2E questions:

    We are on 8.02 Lecroy version. I don't know which version is the most "stable", they are best off using the latest.

    Yes, maybe stick to Lecroy for now.

    Any updates on the CC cap testing? Did they try lowering the capacitance and retesting the eye yet?

    0410Jeff: Seem we have modified source to PP3(BQ25792 to cause IR drop). External 5V have load compensation, we will modify it to PP1(External 5V)

    Jeff: Should be yes. How do I know PP5V powered in this time?

    I mean how to test this function? Is it source PDO1 5V/3A power?

    I've passed shcematic via E2E.

    Basically just asking to measure it and make sure it is powered and stable. Ok, we can see if the compensation helps.

    Thanks and Regards,

    Chris

  • 0 in reply to Christopher Lim1
    Mastermind 7865 points

    Hi Chris,

    I've update the latest test result as below.

    0410Notes_TI (1).xlsx

    Project Name

    SGN-TP-12242401 IEC 62680 on BT 20

    Company

    SANGEAN

    Test Log

    http://share.graniteriverlabs.com.tw/sharing/U78bXZJJE

    Test Item

    Port A

    Remark

    Merged USB PD3 CTS

    LeCroy
    v8.02

    Fail

    0411_DUT#7 & VIF5

    (Checking with LeCroy) TEST.PD.PROT.SRC.08: The UUT did not send a Hard Reset signal after the max of tVCONNSourceOn in the PD2 mode.
    TEST.PD.PS.SRC.02: The UUT VBUS voltage was not within the limits of vSrcNew or vPpsNew or vAvsNew.
    TEST.PD.PS.SRC.03: The current drawn from VBUS exceeded the level specified in the current PDO over the next 5 seconds.

    (Waiver by Customer) TEST.PD.PHY    .ALL.02: The Eye parameters did not meet the requirements.

    (Tester issue) TEST.PD.PHY    .ALL.05: The total BIST message must have been 13362. 26724 BIST message detected.
    (Tester issue) TEST.PD.PS    .SNK.01: The UUT requested PDO is not part of VIF PDO list.
    (Tester issue) COMMON.CHE    CK.PD.3: The UUT did not respond to the Tester message with a right GoodCRC.
    (Tester issue) COMMON.CHECK.PD.5: The UUT was not allowed to send Hard_Reset signal.
  • 0 in reply to Jeff YANG
    TI__Mastermind 30332 points

    Hi,

    Chris is currently out of office. Please allow some delay in responses. 

    Best Regards, 

    Aya Khedr 

  • 0 in reply to Aya Khedr
    TI__Mastermind 37855 points

    Hey Jeff,

    Is it only the three open at the top? Did Lecroy say that the last 4 items are a tester issue?

    I'm fairly confident the first issue is not Lecroy and is TI PD. Still waiting on feedback, i'm checking with the team for updates.

    I'm reviewing the TEST.PD.PS.SC issues and will get back to you asap.

    Thanks and Regards,

    Chris