2 ms·
The charge pins on a battery charging input could be used as a makeshift i2c to communicate with a smart battery chipset, thus communicating the same intentions
by serf 12y ago
The charge pins on a battery charging input could be used as a makeshift i2c to communicate with a smart battery chipset, thus communicating the same intentions ("hay! give me more!") without any additional wiring or need for access to the USB subsystem, while making use of the USB form-factor that's so ubiquitous today.
if lithium batteries weren't so problematic when overcharged you could float-charge everything pretty efficiently, then you wouldn't even need a management system.
Our current way of doing things is probably here to stay, though.
- joosters 12y agoSince the whole concept of this 'usb condom' is to physically disconnect the data communication, re-designing the protocol to use the remaining pins as a data channel would defeat the whole point.
- serf 12y agoNo, the point in the redesign of the protocol would be to eliminate the need for a 'USB condom'. A data channel isn't a data channel. USB is designed to be widely used by many industries, as such the standard has provisions for many use-cases. A battery data channel is only for the charging equipment to communicate with the battery's chipset a limited amount of parameters. The data being transferred is incredibly limited, and can thus be sanitized easier when compared to USB. A protocol designed in such a way would also be easier to test, as the scope of vulnerabilities would be much more limited than a general purpose data channel. Regardless, it was merely a possible answer to > If you disconnect the data pins, how can any device (apple or anyone else) get more?" and really wasn't meant to be a valid product or concept. Just a fleeting thought.
- chillacy 12y agoNot sure how this would work, even i2c devices need a dedicated power/ground line in addition to their control/signal lines.