91–100 of 122 posts
Reminds me of issues I had with the Wahoo Elemnt Bolt bike computer: For some weird reason it cannot charge if you plug the other end of the USB-C cord to a Apple made charger. It works with all other USB-C wall bricks. Never understood what that was about
Apple follows the standards. It probably tries to negotiate power before sending it; the other bricks just apply voltage no matter what.
While I'm glad that they took the time to hold support's feet to the fire over this, doing that sort of thing is almost certainly a waste of time. Seldom will you find a support team who can understand a technical hardware problem like this, and even more seldom will you find a company that responds to this with anything other than "nothing we can do, sorry". You're not going to get the "Wow, that is our bad, we'll r…
Worked in support for a long time. Very true. The real trick is trying to get the support guy to tell you what to do to get the right attention ... IF they know. I used to do that all the time when I did big time networking gear support. "I, the support guy, can't just send you a new router (price like $200k+), that's just the policy, I gotta do X, Y, Z. That will take a bit of time and here is how that works ____ .…
I ran into this issue some months back. The unofficial-official policy seems to be to make you file a dispute with your CC stating that merchandise was not delivered. I was promptly refunded and haven’t had any issues conducting further business with Amazon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you don't bother with the company and report it straight to the regulators. Losing that sweet CE sticker will make them move.
Not implementing USB-PD could cause that to be yanked in a product.l? Maybe these aren’t sold in Europe though.
In your declaration of conformity you have to list which standards you conform to, and IEC 62680-1-3 would be one of them. I suppose if you found to be lying on your declaration there would be consequences.
Table 4-17 Precedence of power source usage https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%...
- Baseline: it behaves like a USB cable from 1996. Sync gets 100mA@5V (USB2) or 150mA@5V (USB3), and then as part of USB enumeration you can get up to 500mA@5V (USB2) or 900/1500mA@5V (USB3 single/dual lane) depending on what happens during USB enumeration.
Then, in priority order:
- USB PD: If both sides negotiate a USB PD contract, that overrides baseline, and you get up to 5A@20V (or more now with the new EPR stuff)
- USB Type-C current: The source drives a voltage on USB-C CC (pin only in USB-C cables) to say if it can give 1.5A@5V or 3A@5V, the sync pulls CC to say if it wants it (what the author is talking about here). If both sides have the right signaling, the source gives the current requested to the sync.
- USB BC 1.2: Intended for charging bricks; brick shorts the USB2 D+/D- together to signal device it gets up to 1.5A@5V. Or 2.4A@5V if you use Apple's extension (see, every iPad brick back in the day)
So, wonder if the USB-C to USB-A case in the article is just working because it's hooking up to a USB BC brick with that USB-C to USB-A cable, and the remote needs more than 100mA to charge and only supports the USB BC case?
Note only baseline is required to be compliant with the spec; there's no rule that the device has to use any of the other features.
Welcome to USB :)
For the curious, there's a hierarchy defined by the USB-C cable spec. Table 4-17 Precedence of power source usage https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%... - Baseline: it behaves like a USB cable from 1996. Sync gets 100mA@5V (USB2) or 150mA@5V (USB3), and then as part of USB enumeration you can get up to 500mA@5V (USB2) or 900/1500mA@5V (USB3 single/dual lane) depending on what happens during U…
The spec is specifically designed to allow this, because USB has backwards compatibility as a core tenant (i.e. you can plug in your USB keyboard from 1996 and it will probably still work). Also a USB-C to micro USB-B cable or USB-C to USB-A cable is explicitly allowed in the spec, and how could such a thing possibly work if the spec somehow required using the new CC pins instead of making them optional, since those pins are not in USB-A/USB-B?
Still, not the nicest experience for users :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are my go to cables https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093YVRHMB - USB C/USB A on one end - USB C/Lightning/micro USB on the other end - 10 GB/s data - supports video over USB C (I have a portable external display that gets power and video over USB C) - 100W charging - USB 3.1
Big minus: Max length is 5ft. That doesn't work for me. Also, a lot of the reviews are really bad, everything from poor construction to not being flexible enough to the connectors not fitting.
It is highly unlikely they are selling a compliant 100W cable that is over 3 feet.
Is there a royalty on the chipset to do it better than resistor pullups? The article implies its a relatively high BoM cost to have the negotiation. I can see its pinouts, board design, test but the actual chip.. surely is still down in the 0.0001c range? or is this one "pay the cartel" expensive?
So you end up needing a 48MHz Cortex-M0 microcontroller just to do the god damned power delivery. At least, I've never seen it done by a less capable part. And processors of that class are, alas, just not that cheap.
While I'm glad that they took the time to hold support's feet to the fire over this, doing that sort of thing is almost certainly a waste of time. Seldom will you find a support team who can understand a technical hardware problem like this, and even more seldom will you find a company that responds to this with anything other than "nothing we can do, sorry". You're not going to get the "Wow, that is our bad, we'll r…
> doing that sort of thing is almost certainly a waste of time. A waste of time for both parties, because the author is wrong. As Wikipedia helpfully points out: "The designation C refers only to the connector's physical configuration or form factor and should not be confused with the connector's specific capabilities" From the write up it looks like he was able to get it working with the minimum 3A required by the c…
> USB-C devices may optionally provide or consume bus power currents of 1.5 A and 3.0 A (at 5 V) in addition to baseline bus power provision; power sources can either advertise increased USB current through the configuration channel, or they can implement the full USB Power Delivery specification using both BMC-coded configuration line and legacy BFSK-coded VBUS line.
And further down:
> However, to connect a USB 2.0/1.1 device to a USB-C host, use of Rd[57] on the CC pins is required, as the source (host) will not supply VBUS until a connection is detected through the CC pins.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C
As the device doesn't implement the full USB PD specs, it must advertise that it wants power through the CC (configuration channel) pins. This is part of the specifications and it must be properly implemented.
(throwaway account for fear of retribution) Eh, I don't know... The author seems to assume the USB-IF is a good thing. Having gone through the despicable $4,000 shakedown that is required to get a vendor id from the USB-IF, and implemented multiple devices against the outrages that are the specs, I dream about the remote possibility of living in a post-USB world someday. Yes, I was around in the bad old days before U…
Totally unrelated to the substance of your post… enable word wrapping in those text boxes if possible.