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

Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#31

Post by hazeii »

542458 wrote: post #19
thijsvandien wrote: post #3

Reminder to self: being an early adopter sucks virtually always. Edit: Sure, the issue is rather easy to circumvent, but anyone would have preferred not to have it. At the very least, it affects the resale value. My point is that whenever the answer to the question 'do I need it absolutely right away?' is no, it's better to wait a bit, no matter how much you intend to buy it at some point.

Eh, it’s not too bad. I found a cable that works and I’ll stick to it. Even with previous-gen Pis there was always a bit of futzing with cables to find one that has small enough voltage drop to not get power warnings (even some otherwise “good” cables really cheap out on copper). The USB C thing is still an issue, and I’m glad it’ll be fixed, but it’s really not that big of a deal.

Having chopped up quite a few USB cables to power Pi's from fixed supplies (for professional use), I can totally relate to this. Even thick 'quality' cables commonly have dinky little copper wires inside, wrapped in lots of plastic. The only cables we found that were decently made were Molex ones which cost around 10UKP each at the time (a price we were happy to pay).

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#32

Post by close04 »

gambiting wrote: post #22
thijsvandien wrote: post #3

Reminder to self: being an early adopter sucks virtually always. Edit: Sure, the issue is rather easy to circumvent, but anyone would have preferred not to have it. At the very least, it affects the resale value. My point is that whenever the answer to the question 'do I need it absolutely right away?' is no, it's better to wait a bit, no matter how much you intend to buy it at some point.

I simply ordered one with the official power supply(at £8 it's cheaper than literally any branded USB-C charger) and would never even know there was an issue if not for the articles here.

Only downside of the official power supply (if you are not British) is that it tends to cover some of the neighboring plugs on the extension cord. They could have gone with a slightly narrower and taller one but I assume this is what fits best on the British 3-prong.

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#33

Post by groovybits »

From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal.

However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn't C supposed to be the 'all purpose' spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as 'compatible with Raspberry Pi' or 'compatible with Nintendo Switch'. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the 'one size fits all' connector. We're slowly heading in the opposite direction.

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#34

Post by dividuum »

tjohns wrote: post #30
baq wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They provide their own charger. It works, I’ve got one.

Yes, but it's an extra expense. If you've got spare USB-C chargers you could use, it's tempting to wait.

Their USB charger costs 7€. From my experience: Just buy their charger and you'll have no problem. I've seen so many attempts at powering the Pi with alternative sources that suck and cause problems. 7€ is worth avoiding that.

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#35

Post by BoorishBears »

jakeogh wrote: post #26
BoorishBears wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you spec a fuse for out of spec usage? What's stopping me from connecting a strand of magnet wire between both sides?

A consumer does not solder USB connectors together with magnet wire. Power plug compatibility which relies on software for fire safety is a bad idea.

Ok? But the kind of supplier willing to under-design cables will gladly do stuff that's barely a step up?

I literally don't understand your proposed alternative unless you're saying all cables should be spec'd to handle the max amount of voltage... in which case people would still under-design.

If the fuse is designed to keep cables for some voltage X from going up in flames, how will it keep cables for some voltage X-Y from going up in flames while also allowing Voltage X, when both are in spec?

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#36

Post by PhasmaFelis »

jbarberu wrote: post #11

While this isn't great, as a consumer I don't really see too big of a problem. If I get a raspberry pi to use for home automation or as a media center, do I really need it to work with every USB-C cable? I'd think I'd just find one that works and let that be the dedicated raspberry 4 cable. If you're building a product based on Raspberry Pi that you're selling to others, then sure I could understand the outrage.

I'd be pretty damn annoyed if I went to set up my new media center and discovered that I was gonna need to go out, buy a selection of different cables, and figure out which one works.

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#37

Post by openthc »

SSilver2k2 wrote: post #28
solarkraft wrote: post #18

How hard is it to to copy a [expletive] schematic? Edit: I'm serious. What convinced them to implement a design different from the example in the spec that simply does not work (hello, testing?)?

The USB-C spec is 300 pages with multiple errata and revisions. It's not just one schematic.

FTA: Benson Leung seems to think they should have copied figured 4-9 -- https://medium.com/@leung.benson/how-to-design-a-proper-usb-...

I don't think a long and imperfect specification is a good excuse for getting this one wrong -- since this specific part of the spec is a MUST and accurate.

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#38

Post by oftenwrong »

groovybits wrote: post #33

From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal. However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn't C supposed to be the 'all purpose' spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as 'compatible with Raspberry Pi' or 'compatible with Nintendo Switch'. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the 'one size fits al…

USB Type-C is an example of the second-system effect:

http://catb.org/jargon/html/S/second-system-effect.html

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#39

Post by CriticalCathed »

groovybits wrote: post #33

From a Pi consumer perspective, this is not that big of a deal. However, it damages the purpose (in name) of USB C. Isn't C supposed to be the 'all purpose' spec? If we have popular manufacturers failing to follow the spec, we end up with cables marked as 'compatible with Raspberry Pi' or 'compatible with Nintendo Switch'. To the average consumer (and even most techies), USB C was supposed to be the 'one size fits al…

USB C has confused me for the same reason. I read often about how there is no expectation that two USB-C cables/ports will work together.

Why design them to fit together if they won't always work right?

Re: Raspberry Pi admits to faulty USB-C design on the Pi 4

#40

Post by inflatableDodo »

kllrnohj wrote: post #23
jbarberu wrote: post #11

While this isn't great, as a consumer I don't really see too big of a problem. If I get a raspberry pi to use for home automation or as a media center, do I really need it to work with every USB-C cable? I'd think I'd just find one that works and let that be the dedicated raspberry 4 cable. If you're building a product based on Raspberry Pi that you're selling to others, then sure I could understand the outrage.

They chose to use a standard so yes it's a problem that they didn't follow it. It's pretty cut & dry here. Fortunately in this case it fails to 0V so it's not a dangerous or damaging failure, but still the spec literally hands you a schematic. Is it that hard to just copy it? Why did they even try to be clever and use their own design in the first place just to save a single 5.1k ohm resistor?

>but still the spec literally hands you a schematic. Is it that hard to just copy it? Why did they even try to be clever and use their own design in the first place just to save a single 5.1k ohm resistor?

See also: People who like to get all creative with encryption library implementations in commercial settings. If implementing a standard protocol, unless you have a very good reason otherwise, you should;

1. Go and find the guide by the people who designed it.

2. Read the guide and make test thingies till you are sure you understand it.

3. Now go and do what the guide tells you to do.

Post reply on HN