USB-PD Rev 3.1 Support in STM32G4 MCU and TCPP

[dondmadappallil-iontra]

Hi Team,

We are working on a USB-PD sink solution to negotiate 140W (28V 5A - EPR in USBPD r1.3) and planning to use STM32G491 MCU which has an embedded UCPD interface.

STM32 solutions for USB Type-C and Power Delivery page mentions that:-

> STM32 UCPD MCUs are compliant with the latest USB PD r3.1 specifications and support:

• SPR messages (standard power range up to 100 W)
• EPR messages (extended power range up to 240 W)

But in the datasheet for STM32G4 series MCUs under USB Type-C™ / USB Power Delivery controller (UCPD) section specifies:-
> The device embeds one controller (UCPD) compliant with USB Type-C Rev. 1.2 and USB
   Power Delivery Rev. 3.0 specifications.

I have also checked the datasheet of couple of other STM32 MCUs listed in STM32 solutions for USB Type-C and Power Delivery page. All these datasheet just specifies USB PD Rev. 3.0

I would like to get a confirmation if UCPD interface in STM32G4 MCU supports USB PD r3.1?More specifically can it support negotiating 140W?

Also does the TCPP01-M12 :- USB Type-C Power Delivery protection for Sink application supports 140W negotiation?
The page for the same specifies:-

>

• Compliant with USB Type-C™ power delivery standard 3.1, standard power range (SPR), up to 100 W

Does it mean, it won't support EPR(100W+), even though it supports USB Type-C™ power delivery standard 3.1?

Note: We are using x-cube-tcpp V4.0.0 with USB-C Power Delivery Core Stack Library V5.0.0(for which the release notes specifies "Official support of Universal Serial Bus Power Delivery Specification Revision 3.1")

[Tesla DeLorean]

Might I suggest a deeper conversation with your local sales/support rep, or FAE

Or open a support ticket? https://ols.st.com/s/

[dondmadappallil-iontra]

I tried raising a support ticket for the same. But the response was suggesting to ask the question in community forum.

[Tesla DeLorean]

Unfortunately those ticketing systems are opaque, so no idea what details, data and responses they offer.

When you get into the corners of the specifications and supported / compliant type situations, you might be able request things, and the device declines. I don't know if there's a test suite or report covering the specific feature set supported.

 

@STOne-32 @STTwo-32 - Might I suggest the OLS be used to connect users with salient staff members rather than pushing requests for internal support back on the forum, and perhaps sharing more broadly, and anonymously if necessary, details that might reduce traffic here.

[STOne-32]

Dear @dondmadappallil-iontra , @Tesla DeLorean ,

Thank you for reaching us, I confirm that we received the Online support ticket : 00208205  one Hour ago and is managed by our World Wide dispatching center, this case will be for sure escalated to our regional team in Asia/India and get in touch with our experts and discuss on the application use case.

We will be back to you. Ciao

STOne-32.

[Kaikallon]

What is this nonsense about raising support tickets? I have the exact same question. Should I also raise a ticket? Please just answer the question