Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

ti.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#61

Post by jsmith45 »

Shog9 wrote: post #57
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, that's far from truth... "back in the day", you had an ericsson charger that fit in an ericsson phone and charget that ericsson phone well... and you had a nokia charger for you nokia that charged your nokia. They physically looked different, they wouldn't fit into any other device, and when you needed a charger, you'd take the one that fit the charging hole and it would charge. Now, you have a bunch of usb C…

In practice, this complexity means you at least have a chance. Most phones and almost all low-power devices will accept power from most chargers and cables. Probably not at a maximum level, but if you're stuck somewhere you can get by. Power-hungry laptops are trickier, but even so... I've gone a week or more trickle charging a laptop from whatever travel charger I happened to have on hand, using it for a few hours,…

I have successfully had am M1 MacBook open and in active use (albeit not with very heavy workload, mostly text editor and web), while plugged into a Nintendo Switch 1 charger (only thing I had handy at that moment), and was watching the battery percentage slowly increasing over time. So even laptops can sometimes charge slowly while in use with a rather underpowered type C charger (Albeit still slightly better than a cheapo 5V 3A Type-C phone charger).

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#62

Post by xg15 »

Always found it a bit strange that USB-C is referred to as a "new connector" when it clearly seems to be an entirely new protocol. (Unlike the previous new connectors mini and micro which were just differently-shaped plugs for the same wires)

So is the protocol technically USB 4.0 and USB-C "just" a new connector role defined by that protocol, or did they ditch the versioning and "USB-C" is its own thing?

The guide mentions that USB 4.0 is the first version to require a USB-C connector, but then later refers to the "USB-C protocol". Is that the same as USB 4.0?

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#63

Post by samatman »

xg15 wrote: post #62

Always found it a bit strange that USB-C is referred to as a "new connector" when it clearly seems to be an entirely new protocol. (Unlike the previous new connectors mini and micro which were just differently-shaped plugs for the same wires) So is the protocol technically USB 4.0 and USB-C "just" a new connector role defined by that protocol, or did they ditch the versioning and "USB-C" is its own thing? The guide m…

Perhaps you will find page 27, "USB signals over USB Type-C®", clears up the strangeness.

At least when you get to the first section, "USB 2.0 Signaling Over Type-C".

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#64

Post by ianburrell »

xg15 wrote: post #62

Always found it a bit strange that USB-C is referred to as a "new connector" when it clearly seems to be an entirely new protocol. (Unlike the previous new connectors mini and micro which were just differently-shaped plugs for the same wires) So is the protocol technically USB 4.0 and USB-C "just" a new connector role defined by that protocol, or did they ditch the versioning and "USB-C" is its own thing? The guide m…

USB-C is a connector. Part of the confusion is that USB specification versions have come to be associated with the protocols and speeds defined there. The basic division is between USB2 and USB3 which are separate protocols on different wires. USB-C has multiple high speed lanes.

USB 3.0 defined the SuperSpeed protocol and 5GBps speed. Later versions increased speeds, 10GBps (USB3.1), 20GBps (USB3.2). These were also called Gen1, Gen2, or now just the speeds.

Then, there are alternate modes which run other protocols over high speed lanes. DisplayPort is the most common one.

Next, USB4 defined USB4 protocol which multiplexes SuperSpeed and DisplayPort over two high speed lanes. USB4 requires USB-C. This is basically Thunderbolt standardized. Specification also defines 20Gbps, 40Gbps, and 80Gbps speeds.

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#65

Post by Melatonic »

mtabini wrote: post #43

Bit of self-promotion: I spent the last year or so designing an open-source USB-PD protocol analyzer[1], and the complexity of the protocol can be mind-boggling. Most of the time, the communication between source and sink is really straightforward, but it can get amazingly complicated when both devices are dual-role or come from the same vendor[2]. As messy as it is, however, it's also a very useful protocol that all…

What do you think of those cheap chips you can use as USB-C PD control boards ? They usually have a button some way to cycle between a few different output voltages (like 12v, 5v, 18v, etc)

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#66

Post by m463 »

rconti wrote: post #46
kubb wrote: post #22

My new iPhone with USB C charging is such an improvement! Thank goodness for the European Union. If it weren't for them, we'd all be stuck with these flimsy Apple charging cables forever.

honestly, the lightning CONNECTOR was far better, but man, I really appreciate the standardization. We have one device on the house left using lightning (my wife's iPhone 13 mini) and .. well, I just wish they'd release a new mini, that's all.

> I just wish they'd release a new mini

you and a lot of other people.

that's the only reason I have lightning in the house, actually.

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#67

Post by m463 »

mapt wrote: post #25
imtringued wrote: post #15

Guides like this explain why there are so many broken USB-C devices. The guide mentions that you do not need a PD chip for 5Vs, but then tells you that USB C is a cold connector meaning 0V is on VBUS when nothing is connected and jumps straight into the complexities of the PD protocol running over the CC pins instead of explaining how to get the 5V without the PD chip first. Then in the section where it tells you how…

My phone's USB-C port is worn out, and so now it's a brick if I don't have a wireless charging dock around. Is it physically impossible to get bandwidth and power out of something as durable as a Magsafe connector, even a larger-scale version?

I wonder if you could bond one of those magnetic USB-C cables onto your port.

like:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09P9PNFS6

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#68

Post by yellowapple »

graemep wrote: post #32
BLanen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were non-apple lightning cables already. And I have to say, the lightning connector itself is better than the usb-c connect in my opinion. I get that having the pins on the male* plug is a theoretical advantage in durability but that has not been my experience with usb-c connector durability on either end. EDIT: usb-c has pins on the male plug. Which is what I meant. So female -> male.

I have not used lightning but I have found USB C to be much more fragile than USB A, although better than mini and micro. I would really rather have had evey thing be a few mm bigger and stick with A.

A USB-C successor (USB-D?) that's USB-A sized but with the added pins, reversibility, and bidirectionality of USB-C would be neat. But USB-C is “good enough” as a one-standard-to-rule-them-all that I don't think it'd be worth it unless there was a massive benefit (faster data transfer? beefier power lines? optical data lines?).

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#69

Post by wredcoll »

mapt wrote: post #55
wredcoll wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you "wear out" a usbc port? Is this phone like 15 years old? My imagination is boggled.

A year of plugging it in once or twice a day to recharge it, and it blew. Old rectangular USB-A was only rated for 1500 ideal insertions. USB-C is a big improvement at 10,000 ideal insertions. Most insertions are not ideal, and it is relatively common to have some leveraged pressure trying to wedge the port apart; When my phone bridges the gap between the arm of the sofa and the coffee table while plugged in, for exa…

Ok I'm not going to try breaking it but my intuition says it would break the cable first, not the port?

Re: An Engineer's Guide to USB Typе-С (2024)

#70

Post by wredcoll »

somat wrote: post #53
wredcoll wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you "wear out" a usbc port? Is this phone like 15 years old? My imagination is boggled.

It's a narrow connector and sideways force acts like a knife on the shell. blowing out the sides. and then the connector is unreliable. It is better than microusb but worse than usb-a. So it depends on how you baby it, but a few good accidental tugs can ruin a phone. I like to run my game controllers wired and ruined one(xbox-one controller) this way when I got a bit agitated during a game, it's replacement(8-bitdo w…

> It's a narrow connector and sideways force acts like a knife on the shell. blowing out the sides.

But the port is contained with any the body of the device and the cord is just dangling so wouldn't that kinda thing break the cord first?

I mean, everything breaks with enough use/bad luck/whatever, I've just never seen a usbc port break like that.

The other day I was using a magnetic usbc connector to a headphone and it broke by ripping the part of the connect that inserts into the port away from the body of the plug, but the port itself was fine.

Post reply on HN