usb
Our USB ports design include one USB transiever(STOTG04EQTR) and USB HUB(TUSB2036VF).The circuit drawing as below
But even the USB1.1 doesn't work. I tested the data line , the waveform really bad as below
I did not found any layout problem and we ask the USB differential pair 90 ohm as well(Not sure if the factory really followed)
Thanks
Hui
My understanding of the your design is that the entire device is on a single PCB, is within a single enclosure, and is connected to the host by a single USB cable. You've integrated a hub onto the PCB to allow both the devices to communicate with the PC. The following answer will hinge on these assumptions, if it's made of several separate devices connected by disconnectable cables then that changes things.
In this case, I suggest that you simply configure the hub to enumerate as a high-power device, and share the resulting 500 mA among the whole board. Interestingly enough, TI's ganged-port sample schematic shows the devices all connected together, even when using their power management IC:
The incoming 5V power supply line (highlighted in blue, as it's one of two nets that we're interested in on this complicated schematic) is connected to a TPS2041 power management IC (a generous description, it's really just a FET that shuts down when it detects 500mA of current being passed). However, each of the inputs are shorted together, and each of the outputs are shorted together as well, and then distributed to each of the downstream ports (the net shown in red).
Basically, they're doing overcurrent protection for all of the downstream sections in a single IC. They have no way of detecting whether they have three low-power (100mA) units, a single high-power unit, or two low-power units and one 300 mA unit. All these options are acceptable based on this reference design. You wrote:
According to the USB specification, a bus-powered hub can provide only one unit per downstream port while drawing max 5 units...
but, to directly answer your question, this design from Texas Instruments (a USB group member and major implementor) shows that you only have to guarantee that the total current is less than 5 units.
To solve your problem, the rules state (taken from the excellent USB in a nutshell document):
High power bus powered functions will draw all its power from the bus and cannot draw more than one unit load until it has been configured, after which it can then drain 5 unit loads (500 mA Max) provided it asked for this in its descriptor.
If you can guarantee that your driver stage will not begin drawing current until the device has been configured (which might be as simple as a timed delay in the host controller), you can simply wire everything together. Because your entire circuit is on a single PCB and has no user-accessible downstream ports, you can probably also leave out the TPS2041 and simply design the system to not require more than 500 mA of current in any state.
Another benefit of enumerating as a high-power device is improved input voltage specifications. When you have enumerated as a low-power device, the host is only required to produce 4.40 V at the upstream port (which will be lower at your device due to the resistance of the cable). When you have enumerated as a high-power device, the specification guarantees that you'll get 4.75 V, which is more likely to be within the operating range of any 5V components you may be using.
It's a hard question to answer as this is more of a debugging thing. But I can contribute some ideas as to what you could try.
The first thing I thought was that your pigtail connections (the 1-2cm loose wires coming out of the cable and onto your board) might be too long for 480 MBps operation. Ideas to try:
A note to some comments here: Don't worry about number of vias and the length matching of those PCB traces. Done right, vias and a small bit of length mismatch have never been a problem for USB 2.0. And this is insignificant compared to what you do with the cable pigtails.
Some typical general errors to check for include:
Also I would not rule out software just yet. Look for differences - like in the config data etc.
And don't be too proud to ask an experienced hardware guy for help :-)
Update - Note on measuring Vcc ripple:
Taken from my answer to this question: How do I verify that my 3.3v power rail meets the requirements for an Ember EM357 SoC?
The best paper I know of that describes how to do this measurement is this one: http://www.electrical-integrity.com/Quietpower_files/Quietpower-21.pdf
In short: Use a coax cable soldered directly to your board. Run the 50R coax into your oscilloscope set to 50R input impedance. Select AC-coupling. A bandwidth that is adequate (minimum 500 MHz). And infinite persistence.
If you make the measurement using a high impedance probe with a long "pig-tail" for ground - you may have extra noise not related to your Vcc noise picked up. When in doubt, always do the null-experiement: touch the probe tip to the ground point, so both tip and ground of the probe touches the same point on the board. If you don't get a flat line, something is being picked up by inductive coupling into the loop formed by probe and ground lead.
So do you have too much noise? Suppose the datasheet of this device calls for 3.3V +/-5% for the Vcc supply. That means you have +/-165mV as the limit. Let's assume you have a 2% accuracy of your 3.3V DC regulator. And let's assume you have a 0-1% distribution drop in the connections between the regulator and the device (cables, connectors, traces, filters etc.). That leaves 2% to the AC-noise/ripple or +/-66mV (132mVpp).
Best Answer
The downstream pulldown resistors \$R_{PD}=15 k\Omega\$ are missing for the USB data lines. These are required for correct bus state when neither host nor device are driving the bus.