2 ms·
USB-C is the bees knees if it works right. Which does not seem to always happen. Plus, "active cable" is close enough to an oxymoron to make me afraid we overr
by B1FF_PSUVM 3y ago
USB-C is the bees knees if it works right. Which does not seem to always happen.
Plus, "active cable" is close enough to an oxymoron to make me afraid we overreached.
(I do like that a small pocket kit with an USB C cable and a couple of adapters seems to cover most needs.)
- eternityforest 3y agoThe one thing I don't quite like about active cables is that they didn't use Dallas One-Wire or i2c or uart. Otherwise, it seems to work fine. Hobby level stuff would be a lot simpler if any old microcontroller could talk to a PPS supply, interrogate cables, etc.
- crote 3y agoI2C or uart would require an additional wire, so that'd be cost-prohibitive. But I do agree that something like One-Wire would be better from a hobbyist perspective. Although probably easy to implement in silicon, USB PD is an absolute nightmare to DIY. Pretty much your only option is to get a dedicated PHY like the FUSB302B to do the actual electronic part of PD comms for you.
- eternityforest 3y agoSeems like it must not be that easy to implement, or it would already by in all the chips the way CANBus seems to be integrated in tons of stuff. One-wire stuff is so cheap, and and they have EEPROMS meant for exactly this kind of electronic marking(I believe it's what power adapters did before USB), and it can be done with pure software on an MCU costing pennies.