3 ms·
I feel like you haven't read a single word I've written. Please reread my original comment. Imagine two usb-to-serial adapters. Now, imagine connecting them to
by tjoff 5y ago
I feel like you haven't read a single word I've written. Please reread my original comment.
Imagine two usb-to-serial adapters. Now, imagine connecting them to different PCs. Now connect a serial cable between those two adapters.
That is what I'm describing.
Only the usb-to-serial-adapters are actually inside the cable.
No USB host is talking directly to another USB host. No USB host is "powering" another USB host etc. Your comments are not relevant to the scenario described.
- masklinn 5y agoYes I clearly misunderstood your comment. Because frankly it doesn’t make any sense as a response. What you’re describing here is a multi-host device, like a KVM. That is completely unrelated to the original comment, it’s two unrelated host-device links. Probably with what amounts to a broken device in the middle: both hosts will behave as hosts to the serial link, and USB is a host-centric protocol. So at best nothing will happen because they won’t be able establish anything, and at worst they won’t be able to cope with unexpected transactions and will get corrupted.
- tjoff 5y agoNo, it is highly relevant as some USB-A to USB-A cables do function exactly like that. And again there seems to be some serious disconnect somewhere here because I've got no clue what you are trying to say. My made-up usb-to-serial adapter example will work as is - even with two hosts talking to each other (through a intermediary). Just as well as such a cable will work. Why talk about corruption? Why would host-centric be a problem in this scenario?