|
|
|
|
|
|
by formula1
3001 days ago
|
|
|
This seems to a problem with the spec then. Its about the customer. Amoung the customers are - the consumer - who buys the product
- the product - who buys from the manufacturer
- the manufacturer If the manufacturer wants to only implement a subsect of the full spec, they should be allowed to do that. This has additional be benefits with regard to minimizing the resources used. Granted, its a cool spec with great potential and i enjoy seeing it in action with regard to sbcs. But the manufacturer is also a customer. If it doesn't work for them then there probably needs to be some changes |
|
|
First there is the C plug and cable, including provisions for converting between C and the various A and B sizes. This is the spec that introduce various resistors to signal if the cable is a converter or (a very big or that has created much problems) if it can handle various watts at 5V.
then there is the power delivery spec that on paper can be used with any USB plug (yes, even your old A and B formats), and allows current to go in either direction at up to 20V.
And thirdly there is a continuation of the 3.0 data spec, 3.1, that include a provision for using various wires in the C cable in an alternate mode. This mode allows anything from digital video to PCI bus traffic to travel over the same cable, if both ends support the protocol traveling over the alternate mode wires. outside of alternate mode the 3.1 data spec can also be used with 3.0 A and B ports.
So even if your device have a C port, it may not be able to handle more than 5V at 0.5A and 1.0 data speeds...