News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on USB4 Specification. Parent comment

Re:USB4 Specification by izacus on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:09AM (#20875012)
No, because power delivery is negotiated from a safe USB1 type base levels. If the device doesn't request it, it won't get delivered.

The only outliers are moronic implementations like Nintendo, where they ask for capabilities, receive the charger capabilities and then just start pulling power at hardcoded levels even if the charger doesn't specify it supports those power levels. But there's nothing you can do against that - you even with different port shape, a broken implementation can still fry your device.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification by chrisweekly on Friday September 06, 2019 @08:59AM (#20895190)
You started with "no" (ie, it's safe)... then ended with "can still fry your device".

I infer your point: the shape of the connector in theory is decoupled from risks in power delivery... but in reality the prevalence of cheap knockoffs and "moronic implementations" makes me question the wisdom of combining [potentially dangerous levels of] power delivery with data transfer.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification by sschueller on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @01:29PM (#20879428)
Didn't the charger from the Pixel not implement this correctly and send full power down the line even if a device can't handle it?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification by ProZsolt on Thursday September 05, 2019 @03:45AM (#20884665)
The Pixel charger was fine AFAIK. The Nexus 5x and 6P had rogue chargers
[ Parent | on HN ]