Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #9770 > unrolled thread

rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Contents

  rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 11:02 -0400
    Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2015-10-06 18:02 +0100
      Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector Jonathan Lane <tidux@faeroes.freeshell.org> - 2015-10-06 20:04 +0000
        Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 22:40 -0400
          Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-07 11:11 +0100
            Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 11:47 -0400
              Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector Theo Markettos <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-07 19:06 +0100
                Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 15:35 -0400
                  Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector fruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-10-07 21:42 +0100
                    Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 17:27 -0400
                      Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector fruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk> - 2015-10-08 07:36 +0100
                        Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> - 2015-10-08 09:34 +0000
                          Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-08 19:26 +0100
                            Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 18:40 -0400
                        Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2015-10-11 20:28 +0300
                          Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2015-10-11 20:48 +0200
      Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 22:47 -0400
    Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector julianmkizner@gmail.com - 2016-11-02 18:08 -0700
      Re: rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2016-11-05 13:01 +0000

#9770 — rPi and USB 3.1 w/ type C connector

I just read a bit about USB 3.1 and the type C connector.  Sounds pretty 
impressive, at least in the future when more of the capabilities will be 
fully exploited.  I am wondering if there will be plans to incorporate 
this into the rPi chipset so that we have an even simpler device to 
power, boot and connect I/O?

It really looks like it might be possible to have say, six USB 3.1, type 
C connectors on an embedded board like the rPi and be able to connect to 
a power supply, boot drive, monitor, keyboard, mouse and still have an 
available port left over using just one type of connector!  Pretty cool, 
huh?  Provide 8 ports and use an Ethernet adapter to talk to those 
obsolete devices you've got sitting around and have two ports spare.

I've never been that enthused about using PC type buses for embedded 
devices, but with the level of integration available today and the new 
USB interface, I can't see any reason not to leave the old stuff behind 
and go with the flow on this one.  I see an rPi being just two chips 
(SoC and memory) with power support.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9774

On 06/10/15 16:02, rickman wrote:
> I just read a bit about USB 3.1 and the type C connector.  Sounds pretty
> impressive, at least in the future when more of the capabilities will be
> fully exploited.  I am wondering if there will be plans to incorporate
> this into the rPi chipset so that we have an even simpler device to
> power, boot and connect I/O?
>
> It really looks like it might be possible to have say, six USB 3.1, type
> C connectors on an embedded board like the rPi and be able to connect to
> a power supply, boot drive, monitor, keyboard, mouse and still have an
> available port left over using just one type of connector!  Pretty cool,
> huh?  Provide 8 ports and use an Ethernet adapter to talk to those
> obsolete devices you've got sitting around and have two ports spare.
>
> I've never been that enthused about using PC type buses for embedded
> devices, but with the level of integration available today and the new
> USB interface, I can't see any reason not to leave the old stuff behind
> and go with the flow on this one.  I see an rPi being just two chips
> (SoC and memory) with power support.
>
Not going to happen. At least for quite some time. It would need a 
completely new SoC design, rather than the minor redesign that was made 
for the Pi 2.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9775

Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 06/10/15 16:02, rickman wrote:
> Not going to happen. At least for quite some time. It would need a 
> completely new SoC design, rather than the minor redesign that was made 
> for the Pi 2.
It would also need significantly more expensive silicon.  8xUSB3 changes
the equation from "$25 SBC" to "something with PCIe-bus equivalent
bandwidth for peripherals".  I'd just be happy with a redesign that
moved the ethernet PHY and the storage devices off the USB hub.
-- 
tidux@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9776

On 10/6/2015 4:04 PM, Jonathan Lane wrote:
> Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 06/10/15 16:02, rickman wrote:
>> Not going to happen. At least for quite some time. It would need a
>> completely new SoC design, rather than the minor redesign that was made
>> for the Pi 2.
> It would also need significantly more expensive silicon.  8xUSB3 changes
> the equation from "$25 SBC" to "something with PCIe-bus equivalent
> bandwidth for peripherals".  I'd just be happy with a redesign that
> moved the ethernet PHY and the storage devices off the USB hub.

I don't follow this.  If every part of the I/O were inside the SoC, why 
would that be more expensive?  Don't you think the internal busses of a 
700 MHz processor can keep up with a 5 Gbps serial bus?  32 * 700 MHz is 
22.4 GHz.  Regardless, only the video has to run at particularly high 
rates.  The rest of the peripherals are relatively low average rates 
with high burst rates.  An SoC is only limited by it's memory band 
width.  Why would the SoC be any more expensive?

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9778

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/2015 4:04 PM, Jonathan Lane wrote:
> > Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 06/10/15 16:02, rickman wrote:
> >> Not going to happen. At least for quite some time. It would need a
> >> completely new SoC design, rather than the minor redesign that was made
> >> for the Pi 2.
> > It would also need significantly more expensive silicon.  8xUSB3 changes
> > the equation from "$25 SBC" to "something with PCIe-bus equivalent
> > bandwidth for peripherals".  I'd just be happy with a redesign that
> > moved the ethernet PHY and the storage devices off the USB hub.
> 
> I don't follow this.  If every part of the I/O were inside the SoC, why 
> would that be more expensive?  Don't you think the internal busses of a 
> 700 MHz processor can keep up with a 5 Gbps serial bus?  32 * 700 MHz is 
> 22.4 GHz.  Regardless, only the video has to run at particularly high 
> rates.  The rest of the peripherals are relatively low average rates 
> with high burst rates.  An SoC is only limited by it's memory band 
> width.  Why would the SoC be any more expensive?

There are several parts to this:

Switching to the Synopsys USB 3.0 or 3.1 IP will cost substantially more
in licensing fees than the USB 2 IP which is a mature product

The USB 3 IP may be targeting a smaller process (22, 28nm?).  The PHY is
substantially different.

The above assumes SuperSpeed (5Gbps) or SuperSpeed+ (10Gbps).  It's possible
to do USB 3.0 or 3.1 at only 480Mbps, which is just other spec changes.

Doing 480Mbps/USB 2 over Type C is an option.  But you still need to route
the video into the type C connector: that's an extra chip unless an SoC
respin is on the cards.

USB 3 burns more power than USB 2.  Most new phones are still USB 2 for
instance.

To do type C power requires a redesign of the power system - whether ports
are 'pushing' or 'pulling' power, and how much to handle of the power
delivery spec (up to 20V 5A).  You can choose to not do that: be a 5V
'puller' only and it's simple, but if you're being a hub it's more complex.


The bottom line is it's all extra cost.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9779

On 10/7/2015 6:11 AM, Theo Markettos wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2015 4:04 PM, Jonathan Lane wrote:
>>> Dom <domafp@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 06/10/15 16:02, rickman wrote:
>>>> Not going to happen. At least for quite some time. It would need a
>>>> completely new SoC design, rather than the minor redesign that was made
>>>> for the Pi 2.
>>> It would also need significantly more expensive silicon.  8xUSB3 changes
>>> the equation from "$25 SBC" to "something with PCIe-bus equivalent
>>> bandwidth for peripherals".  I'd just be happy with a redesign that
>>> moved the ethernet PHY and the storage devices off the USB hub.
>>
>> I don't follow this.  If every part of the I/O were inside the SoC, why
>> would that be more expensive?  Don't you think the internal busses of a
>> 700 MHz processor can keep up with a 5 Gbps serial bus?  32 * 700 MHz is
>> 22.4 GHz.  Regardless, only the video has to run at particularly high
>> rates.  The rest of the peripherals are relatively low average rates
>> with high burst rates.  An SoC is only limited by it's memory band
>> width.  Why would the SoC be any more expensive?
>
> There are several parts to this:
>
> Switching to the Synopsys USB 3.0 or 3.1 IP will cost substantially more
> in licensing fees than the USB 2 IP which is a mature product

Can you substantiate this?  I couldn't find anything indicating this. 
Why do you say "Synopsys USB"?  Surely they aren't the only provider of 
USB IP.


> The USB 3 IP may be targeting a smaller process (22, 28nm?).  The PHY is
> substantially different.

Other than the PHY, IP typically doesn't target a process.  Even if it 
does, a smaller process is usually less expensive for the chip.  That's 
why they continue to shrink the feature size.


> The above assumes SuperSpeed (5Gbps) or SuperSpeed+ (10Gbps).  It's possible
> to do USB 3.0 or 3.1 at only 480Mbps, which is just other spec changes.
>
> Doing 480Mbps/USB 2 over Type C is an option.  But you still need to route
> the video into the type C connector: that's an extra chip unless an SoC
> respin is on the cards.

What extra chip?  Video and USB all come from the SoC, why wouldn't it 
be routed inside the SoC?


> USB 3 burns more power than USB 2.  Most new phones are still USB 2 for
> instance.

Just like the USB before it, 3.1 is fully backward compatible.  The only 
real power hog is the high speed when using it.  If you don't need it, 
use the slower speeds.  If you have use for it, voila, it's there!


> To do type C power requires a redesign of the power system - whether ports
> are 'pushing' or 'pulling' power, and how much to handle of the power
> delivery spec (up to 20V 5A).  You can choose to not do that: be a 5V
> 'puller' only and it's simple, but if you're being a hub it's more complex.

Yeah, the power distribution of the rPi is poorly thought out.  With USB 
3.1 you can do away with the power connector and simplify the power 
distribution.  Very likely a chip will be available to handle all 
aspects of power for small designs like the rPi.  So the current maze of 
power components will be reduced to a small handful with one IC for a 
very low price.


> The bottom line is it's all extra cost.

Bottom line is USB 3.1 with the type C connector is a *big* improvement 
with little or no extra cost for small apps like the rPi.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9780

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2015 6:11 AM, Theo Markettos wrote:
> > Switching to the Synopsys USB 3.0 or 3.1 IP will cost substantially more
> > in licensing fees than the USB 2 IP which is a mature product
> 
> Can you substantiate this?  I couldn't find anything indicating this. 
> Why do you say "Synopsys USB"?  Surely they aren't the only provider of 
> USB IP.

The Pi uses the Synopsys Designware USB 2.0 HS OTG core (dwc_usb_2_0_hs_otg). 
I've worked on drivers for it.  I don't know how much the licensing fees are
(and if I did know I couldn't tell you) but USB 2 is mature, USB 3.0/SS is
mainstream and USB 3.1/SS+/Type C is bleeding edge.  Typically mature products
are cheaper than new models.

Changing IP vendor involes changing IP ecosystem, tool setup, verification
solutions, licensing setup and contracts.  You don't do that without a good
reason.  Mix and match of IP cores is possible, but life is a lot simpler
and less risky buying from one vendor.

> > The USB 3 IP may be targeting a smaller process (22, 28nm?).  The PHY is
> > substantially different.
> 
> Other than the PHY, IP typically doesn't target a process.  Even if it 
> does, a smaller process is usually less expensive for the chip.  That's 
> why they continue to shrink the feature size.

On-chip USB is all about the PHY: it's possible to have an external PIPE PHY
chip but you don't want to do that for cost, pin count, board cost and space
reasons.  The rest of the controller is synthesisable logic which, as you
say, is less process dependent.

The Synopsys DesignWare USB-C/USB 3.1 PHY IP webpage mentions it targets
USB-C 3.1 SS/SSP PHY, Type-C - TSMC 16FF+LL, North/South Poly Orientation
which is TSMC 16nm FinFET.  There is no public information on what other
processes they support.
https://www.synopsys.com/dw/ipdir.php?ds=dwc_usb_3_1_phy

The DesignWare USB-C/USB 3.0 PHY IP documentation page:
https://www.synopsys.com/dw/ipdir.php?ds=dwc_usb_3_0_phy
has a long list of processes including 16nm, 28nm, 40nm, 55nm, 65nm from the
likes of TSMC, GlobalFoundries, UMC and SMIC.  So that looks like a much
more portable target BUT only the TSMC 16nm FinFET supports Type C.

None of the Synopsys USB IP cores mention video - I'm unclear how much PHY
support it needs.

> > The above assumes SuperSpeed (5Gbps) or SuperSpeed+ (10Gbps).  It's possible
> > to do USB 3.0 or 3.1 at only 480Mbps, which is just other spec changes.
> >
> > Doing 480Mbps/USB 2 over Type C is an option.  But you still need to route
> > the video into the type C connector: that's an extra chip unless an SoC
> > respin is on the cards.
> 
> What extra chip?  Video and USB all come from the SoC, why wouldn't it 
> be routed inside the SoC?

/If/ you respin the chip, it's all inside the SoC /but/ you need a respin
($million) /and/ you need a USB type C PHY that supports video ($lots, exact
amount not public)

/or/ you don't respin the SoC but you need an external chip (unit cost ~$5
or whatever)

> Yeah, the power distribution of the rPi is poorly thought out.  With USB 
> 3.1 you can do away with the power connector and simplify the power 
> distribution.  Very likely a chip will be available to handle all 
> aspects of power for small designs like the rPi.  So the current maze of 
> power components will be reduced to a small handful with one IC for a 
> very low price.

'A chip' = $x added to the BOM.  Care to suggest a chip that supports USB
3.1 power delivery so we can see what the pricing looks like?

> > The bottom line is it's all extra cost.
> 
> Bottom line is USB 3.1 with the type C connector is a *big* improvement 
> with little or no extra cost for small apps like the rPi.

Changing the connector is cheap, but some of the other things you suggest
aren't.  The Pi cost envelope is already tight.  How much extra on the
ticket price would people be prepared to pay?

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9781

On 10/7/2015 2:06 PM, Theo Markettos wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2015 6:11 AM, Theo Markettos wrote:
>>> Switching to the Synopsys USB 3.0 or 3.1 IP will cost substantially more
>>> in licensing fees than the USB 2 IP which is a mature product
>>
>> Can you substantiate this?  I couldn't find anything indicating this.
>> Why do you say "Synopsys USB"?  Surely they aren't the only provider of
>> USB IP.
>
> The Pi uses the Synopsys Designware USB 2.0 HS OTG core (dwc_usb_2_0_hs_otg).
> I've worked on drivers for it.  I don't know how much the licensing fees are
> (and if I did know I couldn't tell you) but USB 2 is mature, USB 3.0/SS is
> mainstream and USB 3.1/SS+/Type C is bleeding edge.  Typically mature products
> are cheaper than new models.
>
> Changing IP vendor involes changing IP ecosystem, tool setup, verification
> solutions, licensing setup and contracts.  You don't do that without a good
> reason.  Mix and match of IP cores is possible, but life is a lot simpler
> and less risky buying from one vendor.

Fine, but you miss the point that USB 3.1 *will* be incorporated in new 
designs.  This is not a rPi issue, it is a Broadcom issue and *will* 
happen.  The market will use these new CPU chips and they will be 
competing in a market with the older chips.  I can't see the inclusion 
of USB 3.1 will significantly impact the price of the Broadcom CPU chips 
other than potentially for the first 6 months while there is a scarcity 
in the market of USB 3.1 solutions.


>>> The USB 3 IP may be targeting a smaller process (22, 28nm?).  The PHY is
>>> substantially different.
>>
>> Other than the PHY, IP typically doesn't target a process.  Even if it
>> does, a smaller process is usually less expensive for the chip.  That's
>> why they continue to shrink the feature size.
>
> On-chip USB is all about the PHY: it's possible to have an external PIPE PHY
> chip but you don't want to do that for cost, pin count, board cost and space
> reasons.  The rest of the controller is synthesisable logic which, as you
> say, is less process dependent.
>
> The Synopsys DesignWare USB-C/USB 3.1 PHY IP webpage mentions it targets
> USB-C 3.1 SS/SSP PHY, Type-C - TSMC 16FF+LL, North/South Poly Orientation
> which is TSMC 16nm FinFET.  There is no public information on what other
> processes they support.
> https://www.synopsys.com/dw/ipdir.php?ds=dwc_usb_3_1_phy
>
> The DesignWare USB-C/USB 3.0 PHY IP documentation page:
> https://www.synopsys.com/dw/ipdir.php?ds=dwc_usb_3_0_phy
> has a long list of processes including 16nm, 28nm, 40nm, 55nm, 65nm from the
> likes of TSMC, GlobalFoundries, UMC and SMIC.  So that looks like a much
> more portable target BUT only the TSMC 16nm FinFET supports Type C.
>
> None of the Synopsys USB IP cores mention video - I'm unclear how much PHY
> support it needs.

You seem to be saying a lack of information implies negative information.


>>> The above assumes SuperSpeed (5Gbps) or SuperSpeed+ (10Gbps).  It's possible
>>> to do USB 3.0 or 3.1 at only 480Mbps, which is just other spec changes.
>>>
>>> Doing 480Mbps/USB 2 over Type C is an option.  But you still need to route
>>> the video into the type C connector: that's an extra chip unless an SoC
>>> respin is on the cards.
>>
>> What extra chip?  Video and USB all come from the SoC, why wouldn't it
>> be routed inside the SoC?
>
> /If/ you respin the chip, it's all inside the SoC /but/ you need a respin
> ($million) /and/ you need a USB type C PHY that supports video ($lots, exact
> amount not public)
>
> /or/ you don't respin the SoC but you need an external chip (unit cost ~$5
> or whatever)

I have no idea why you think there won't be new SoC devices with USB 
3.0.  It's not a question of "respinning" an old chip.  They are 
constantly designing new chips.  The CPU used in the rPi 2 is not the 
same as the chip in the other rPis.  It was not a "respin", it was a new 
design, as will be any chip with USB 3.1.


>> Yeah, the power distribution of the rPi is poorly thought out.  With USB
>> 3.1 you can do away with the power connector and simplify the power
>> distribution.  Very likely a chip will be available to handle all
>> aspects of power for small designs like the rPi.  So the current maze of
>> power components will be reduced to a small handful with one IC for a
>> very low price.
>
> 'A chip' = $x added to the BOM.  Care to suggest a chip that supports USB
> 3.1 power delivery so we can see what the pricing looks like?

No, *a chip* could replace the existing power support *chips*.  I 
believe there are at least two and it may be three.  When a popular 
device requires multiple power supplies it is very common for chip 
makers to provide a power solution specifically matched to that device. 
  For example, there are any number of multiple rail PSU chips designed 
specifically to power FPGAs.  Same is true for many DSP applications.  I 
expect there would be such a device for a new rPi if the designers 
wanted it to happen.


>>> The bottom line is it's all extra cost.
>>
>> Bottom line is USB 3.1 with the type C connector is a *big* improvement
>> with little or no extra cost for small apps like the rPi.
>
> Changing the connector is cheap, but some of the other things you suggest
> aren't.  The Pi cost envelope is already tight.  How much extra on the
> ticket price would people be prepared to pay?

How much extra will it cost?  I think you are stressing this more than 
it is worth.  Just as other improvements have lowered the cost, I expect 
a new design which considers the large market for the rPi and other apps 
can be lower cost as well.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9782

rickman wrote:

> On 10/7/2015 2:06 PM, Theo Markettos wrote:

>> Changing the connector is cheap, but some of the other things you suggest
>> aren't.  The Pi cost envelope is already tight.  How much extra on the
>> ticket price would people be prepared to pay?
> 
> How much extra will it cost?  I think you are stressing this more than
> it is worth.  Just as other improvements have lowered the cost, I expect
> a new design which considers the large market for the rPi and other apps
> can be lower cost as well.

I, for one, have absolutely no use for USB 3.1/C at present. I haven't even 
got as far as USB 3.0 except for a couple of 2.0/3.0 HDDs!

I am happy with the USB capabilities on /all/ the various machines I have 
here thankyou - and I don't need even more varieties of USB lead than I have 
already!


fruit

PS. I haven't got a BluRay drive either, one of yesteryear's 'must haves' 
ISTR ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9783

On 10/7/2015 4:42 PM, fruit wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/2015 2:06 PM, Theo Markettos wrote:
>
>>> Changing the connector is cheap, but some of the other things you suggest
>>> aren't.  The Pi cost envelope is already tight.  How much extra on the
>>> ticket price would people be prepared to pay?
>>
>> How much extra will it cost?  I think you are stressing this more than
>> it is worth.  Just as other improvements have lowered the cost, I expect
>> a new design which considers the large market for the rPi and other apps
>> can be lower cost as well.
>
> I, for one, have absolutely no use for USB 3.1/C at present. I haven't even
> got as far as USB 3.0 except for a couple of 2.0/3.0 HDDs!
>
> I am happy with the USB capabilities on /all/ the various machines I have
> here thankyou - and I don't need even more varieties of USB lead than I have
> already!

Actually, the cable thing is one of the big advantages.  One cable to 
replace them all!

Yeah, you will have another cable short term, but in a few years there 
will be a lot less need for anything else.  I read about a Mac with just 
USB type C connectors and a head phone jack.  Not even a separate power 
jack.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9784

rickman wrote:

> On 10/7/2015 4:42 PM, fruit wrote:

>> I, for one, have absolutely no use for USB 3.1/C at present. I haven't
>> even got as far as USB 3.0 except for a couple of 2.0/3.0 HDDs!
>>
>> I am happy with the USB capabilities on /all/ the various machines I have
>> here thankyou - and I don't need even more varieties of USB lead than I
>> have already!
> 
> Actually, the cable thing is one of the big advantages.  One cable to
> replace them all!
> 
> Yeah, you will have another cable short term, but in a few years there
> will be a lot less need for anything else.  I read about a Mac with just
> USB type C connectors and a head phone jack.  Not even a separate power
> jack.

I hope the USB gear I have now lasts longer than a few more years!

'One cable to replace them all' sounds great - except that in another year 
or so they will be pushing USB D or 3½ or 4 and we are back to square one!

fruit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9785

In article <0hfhec-7uo.ln1@cubie.ply.me.uk>, fruit  <spam@ply.me.uk> wrote:

>'One cable to replace them all' sounds great - except that in another year 
>or so they will be pushing USB D or 3½ or 4 and we are back to square one!

ob. xkcd: https://xkcd.com/927/

Gordon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9786

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:34:48 +0000 (UTC)
Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote:

> In article <0hfhec-7uo.ln1@cubie.ply.me.uk>, fruit  <spam@ply.me.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> >'One cable to replace them all' sounds great - except that in
> >another year or so they will be pushing USB D or 3½ or 4 and we are
> >back to square one!
> 
> ob. xkcd: https://xkcd.com/927/
> 
Except USB isn't really competing with USB because it's all backward
compatible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9787

On 10/8/2015 2:26 PM, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:34:48 +0000 (UTC)
> Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <0hfhec-7uo.ln1@cubie.ply.me.uk>, fruit  <spam@ply.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 'One cable to replace them all' sounds great - except that in
>>> another year or so they will be pushing USB D or 3½ or 4 and we are
>>> back to square one!
>>
>> ob. xkcd: https://xkcd.com/927/
>>
> Except USB isn't really competing with USB because it's all backward
> compatible.

I remember having a similar conversation about USB vs. Firewire back 
when USB 2.0 was new.  The argument was that USB 2.0 didn't offer 
anything that Firewire didn't, except that there would be one less type 
of connector on computers.  I don't recall the last time I saw a device 
with a Firewire connector.  USB 3.1 type C connector replaces three 
types of connectors with one.  I think it is just a matter of time and 
not a lot of that.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9792

fruit <fruit@invalid.org.uk> writes:

> 'One cable to replace them all' sounds great - except that in another year 
> or so they will be pushing USB D or 3½ or 4 and we are back to square one!

That's a little negative considering the USB micro connector spec is
from 2007. I remember I got my first phone with micro-USB in 2008, also
a bluetooth headset with micro-USB at the same time. While I don't use
that phone any more, the headset is fine and the chargers of both
devices are also fine and other micro-USB chargers work just fine with
all my micro-USB stuff (except for the Raspberry Pi but then that's just
a bad design.) So I've enjoyed a standard connector for seven years.

Of course, the micro-USB did absolutely nothing for my other stuff using
various other USB connectors. USB 3.0 actually introduced some new ones
which apparently didn't get that common and of course old gear with the
square type-Bs or mini-USB connectors isn't going anywhere.

In that sense, while the type C is great and all, it's just another
connector on a long list of USB connectors. I hope it catches on but
we'll see. Right very little is available. That Apple laptop and maybe a
few Chinese phones. I'd want to add a front panel to my PC with both
type-C and old USB connectors and an express card for my laptop but I
haven't seen either available. Didn't check right now though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9793

On 11-10-15 19:28, Anssi Saari wrote:
> In that sense, while the type C is great and all, it's just another
> connector on a long list of USB connectors. I hope it catches on but
> we'll see. Right very little is available. That Apple laptop and maybe a
> few Chinese phones.

On the new Dell XPS 13 and 15: 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9707/dell-xps-lineup-is-reinvigorated-with-skylake-on-the-new-xps-12-xps-13-and-xps-15

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9777

On 10/6/2015 1:02 PM, Dom wrote:
> On 06/10/15 16:02, rickman wrote:
>> I just read a bit about USB 3.1 and the type C connector.  Sounds pretty
>> impressive, at least in the future when more of the capabilities will be
>> fully exploited.  I am wondering if there will be plans to incorporate
>> this into the rPi chipset so that we have an even simpler device to
>> power, boot and connect I/O?
>>
>> It really looks like it might be possible to have say, six USB 3.1, type
>> C connectors on an embedded board like the rPi and be able to connect to
>> a power supply, boot drive, monitor, keyboard, mouse and still have an
>> available port left over using just one type of connector!  Pretty cool,
>> huh?  Provide 8 ports and use an Ethernet adapter to talk to those
>> obsolete devices you've got sitting around and have two ports spare.
>>
>> I've never been that enthused about using PC type buses for embedded
>> devices, but with the level of integration available today and the new
>> USB interface, I can't see any reason not to leave the old stuff behind
>> and go with the flow on this one.  I see an rPi being just two chips
>> (SoC and memory) with power support.
>>
> Not going to happen. At least for quite some time. It would need a
> completely new SoC design, rather than the minor redesign that was made
> for the Pi 2.

I don't think the SoC used in the rPi 2 was done *for* the rPi 2.  I 
think the chip was done for other purposes and used *in* the rPi 2.  Am 
I wrong about this?

I can't imagine that Broadcom is not already designing an SoC chip with 
USB 3.1 as we speak.

-- 

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13275

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:02:51 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> I just read a bit about USB 3.1 and the type C connector.  Sounds pretty 
> impressive, at least in the future when more of the capabilities will be 
> fully exploited.  I am wondering if there will be plans to incorporate 
> this into the rPi chipset so that we have an even simpler device to 
> power, boot and connect I/O?
> 
> It really looks like it might be possible to have say, six USB 3.1, type 
> C connectors on an embedded board like the rPi and be able to connect to 
> a power supply, boot drive, monitor, keyboard, mouse and still have an 
> available port left over using just one type of connector!  Pretty cool, 
> huh?  Provide 8 ports and use an Ethernet adapter to talk to those 
> obsolete devices you've got sitting around and have two ports spare.
> 
> I've never been that enthused about using PC type buses for embedded 
> devices, but with the level of integration available today and the new 
> USB interface, I can't see any reason not to leave the old stuff behind 
> and go with the flow on this one.  I see an rPi being just two chips 
> (SoC and memory) with power support.
> 
> -- 
>
> Rick
But Isn't there some converter cable for power? I'm making a rPi laptop
and i'm thinking on selling it on eBay and getting lattePuppy.
I know, there is usb 2.0 to usb 3.0, but that won't change speeds, only change what type of device it supports.
I am thinking a way to make a life hack with paper clips and stuff to Type-C
Power

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13290

On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 01:08:31 -0000, <julianmkizner@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:02:51 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
>> I just read a bit about USB 3.1 and the type C connector.  Sounds pretty
>> impressive, at least in the future when more of the capabilities will be
>> fully exploited.  I am wondering if there will be plans to incorporate
>> this into the rPi chipset so that we have an even simpler device to
>> power, boot and connect I/O?
>>
>> It really looks like it might be possible to have say, six USB 3.1, type
>> C connectors on an embedded board like the rPi and be able to connect to
>> a power supply, boot drive, monitor, keyboard, mouse and still have an
>> available port left over using just one type of connector!  Pretty cool,
>> huh?  Provide 8 ports and use an Ethernet adapter to talk to those
>> obsolete devices you've got sitting around and have two ports spare.
>>
>> I've never been that enthused about using PC type buses for embedded
>> devices, but with the level of integration available today and the new
>> USB interface, I can't see any reason not to leave the old stuff behind
>> and go with the flow on this one.  I see an rPi being just two chips
>> (SoC and memory) with power support.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rick
> But Isn't there some converter cable for power? I'm making a rPi laptop
> and i'm thinking on selling it on eBay and getting lattePuppy.

What's lattePuppy?
I've FWSEc and found Pro Con's latte firefox filtering and am aware of  
Puppy linux, but not together.

> I know, there is usb 2.0 to usb 3.0, but that won't change speeds, only  
> change what type of device it supports.
> I am thinking a way to make a life hack with paper clips and stuff to  
> Type-C
> Power
>


-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi

csiph-web