[amluto]

As far as I can tell, the spec could have been designed so that having so resistor at all would indicate a baseline cable. Since no resistor is cheaper than a resistor, the cheap cables would omit the resistor and all would be well.

[cesarb]

> As far as I can tell, the spec could have been designed so that having so resistor at all would indicate a baseline cable.

Isn't that exactly how the spec is? AFAIK, a baseline cable has no resistor, the resistors are on the devices on either end. Only "electronic marked" cables have a resistor, and that's where the RPi4 fails: they shorted together the pin which has the configuration wire to the other end (where the device on the other end has one of its pair of resistors) with the pin which on a baseline cable has nothing at all, but which on a more advanced cable has a resistor connected to ground. So when there's no resistor at all (baseline cable) it works; when there's a resistor, the current flows through a wrong path and the voltage ends up in the range for a different kind of device.

[amluto]

Nope. A compliant baseline USB-A to C cable contains a resistor.

[arghwhat]

It could not. I presume that by "baseline", you refer to a USB2.0 Type A to Type C cable.

USB type C is designed to remain passive until it knows if something is connected, and what it is. For most cable types, orientation must also be detected.

This means that there must be something in the cable/plug. This could of course have been a short, but to do that, those pins would have to be dedicated to detecting dumb cables.

Having no pins to waste, a resistor is used instead, which allows not only allows for multiple values for detection, but leaves the pins usable for transmission while detect resistors are in place (Power Delivery, Alternate Modes).

And there is absolutely no issue in that resistor. Everyone found the table, but either failed to read the 3 values, or decided "Hey, more amps is better!", ignoring whether or not the type A end would actually be able to supply it.