Yes. I think the execution will be poorer than the idea. In other words, while the idea is reasonable and the motivation is fine, in practice it will not work as well as people hope.
For example, it could have the perverse “unintended consequence” that people throw away all their existing USB-C power equipment and buy new equipment because the existing equipment doesn’t work well enough in practice with their new device that came without power equipment.
SNAFU. They never do …
I can see a situation where you have to carry around a USB-C power meter to debug this sort of thing. Or maybe USB-C chargers will come with that built in.
Allegedly, USB-A powering the Librem 5 is limited to 500 mA, which is sort of enough to run the device but probably not to charge the battery.
I assume that USB-C PD negotiation is “failing”. Possibly the power bank does not support the right power protocol and version. Do you have documentation for it?
Or maybe Apple will keep the lightning connector and provide a USB-C to lightning adapter i.e. a small passive adapter that is enough to do charging but maybe not enough to do data.
The EU may have been at least as concerned about wireless charging as they were about lightning.
Although you are talking about PD protocol … here are my two cents. IMO (concern), it is about having APPLE 2.4A protocol negotiated (up to 5.2V range) to charge Librem 5, as sink (over USB-C output source as well), and therefore produce extensive heat (in short). It is about mostly having Apple 2.4A protocol present (if not avoided) within USB-A or within USB-C power supply controller. It is about that the same power bank with few charging outputs having ports with and without APPLE 2.4 present:
As pictured above (perhaps needs to be further researched), but SAMSUNG 2.0A protocol is not disturbing factor (interfering protocol) as when charging Librem 5 with such power supply Librem 5 will pick up USB-DCP (5V/1.5A) protocol (might upload some evidence if needed).
P.S. Now someone might understand on why here related manufacturer lough, not so much as before, while transparent presence is gone now (to them it is that Apple 2.4A protocol being sold all over) over this particular decision (supporting/being present within so called generalfull protocol power devices).
If I understand what you saying, yes, the EU might have to come back after a few years of customers tearing their hair out with combinations of device and charger that don’t work or don’t work well and standardise which actual charging protocol is offered.
For sure, when it doesn’t work, you can get finger pointing. Device manufacturer blames charger manufacturer and vice versa. That is a problem that did not previously exist.
If the goal is to allow mobile phones (and other affected devices) to be sold without a charger - if the goal is to allow two disparate phones to use the same one USB-C charger (not necessarily at the same time) - then there is nothing wrong with using an adapter.
What does the legislation actually say? I don’t know and I’m guessing that neither you nor the OP know either.
An adapter is a fairly sensible approach given that there are a zillion legacy devices that won’t have a USB-C port anyway. That way you can use a new charger with a legacy device (assuming that the legacy device outlives its existing charger). (In the Wade household it seems that it is the cable - lightning to USB-A - that dies first. We’ve had to replace several.)
Quarnero, The gadget you show in the pictures, what is this exactly for a model and from where could I get it? It seems to not have an USB-C interface, or I’m wrong?
I have different experience. Having USB-A to USB-C in the path leads in my experience to better results and both negotiations and measurements above 0,5 A.
See:
My interpretation is that when having USB-C to USB-C you might come to problems in the negotiations and end up with 5V 0,5A, while with USB-A in the path it falls back most likely to BC 1.2 which is up to 5V 2A for our case.
Fair enough. I was relying on e.g. Librem 5 USA - Read Before Ordering but it does depend on exactly what “non-PD sources” means or for that matter what protocols the USB-A port at the supply end is capable of.
All the more reason to need diagnostic tools for when the power protocol doesn’t work.
I come back to: Or maybe USB-C chargers will come with [a USB power meter] built in.
Anyway, @guru, please check those two links: https://www.witrn.com/?p=88 and https://www.witrn.com/?p=90 (and let me know which one might suit your needs, A2 shown here, and relatively cheap, you can send PM to me, in German please, explaining your preference). Gadget shown in my previous post is old one and I’m not recommending it for purchase as of 2022. Also AVHzY CT-3 might easily be the best USB meter (but I do not need additional one).
And, IMHO, all actually comes down to getting equal readings from D+ and D- (from USB tester): 0.04 and 0.04 when Librem 5 battery at 100%, coming down from 0.07/0.07 (or so, I’m tired now) when USB-DCP protocol negotiated for both D+/D- outputs in parallel. Actually I cannot explain this, not even coarse, not yet.
I own such a small gadget as well. When I connect it to the L5 power supply with two original USB-C cables it charges the L5 see photo (though, the gadget does not say anything about the used protocol). See first photo:
I think because it has to go either across (USB-A to USB-A) or down (USB-C to USB-C).
So if you want to use the supplied charger with an adapter to USB-A, you will then also need to use a USB-A to USB-C cable to connect the USB meter to the phone.
I believe there’s a manual available for that device but it is probably in Chinglish which would be even more challenging for a person of non-English speaking background.
Thanks for related manual! As written there this USB tester is able to: Fast charge recognition mode: QC2.0, QC3.0 and therefore would show/differentiate only two stated protocols or show (see page 6 and note that you can read D+ and D− which would be for both channels at around or less then 0.04 for both, when USB-DCP protocol actually used, after red LED light turns off):
As second, please note that your posted picture shows that you downgraded current flow three times: once is OK (will increase charging time somewhat but protect Librem 5 from getting hot (and, let us guess, somewhat increase its battery life). Having two cable pull-up 56k resistors is already too much but should charge Librem 5 battery anyway (with having its screen off). Just avoid USB-A channel of this gadget (see below), especially if not directly connected to USB-A power supply output (those USB-A ports, power supply ports, are more then often QC protocol series related, in orange color, rather not the very special blue reserved for BC1.2 protocol, yet sometimes hiding the one to be avoided: Apple 2.4, while not having good taste with Librem 5, at least not to what I expect to get out from used power supply when Qualcomm/Apple protocols not needed). Also please do not use USB-C to USB-A adapters for charging purpose in general (like Anker OTG adapter shown), while those usually cannot transport more than 5V/1A, and might burn out easily (I guess, but certainly relies on particular adapter features).
Also, please start to move around those four multi-function buttons just by having only connection between original Librem 5 power supply and USB-C input to learn more about those switches (gadget screens options, seven independent screens, I guess).
Now, just to add to what @irvinewade correctly noticed, I’m quite sure that your USB gadget is not of bidirectional type and therefore can be used just in direction of arrows printed there and (as already written here today) actually two one way channels (USB-A input->output and the other channel) bridging each other (but not crossing).
Micro USB port there is probably not supporting charging function either (while no micro USB output there, confirming again what already kindly noted).
The manual says on page 6 and 7:
“…
D+: DP, positive data signal
D-: DM, negative data signal
Mode display: The product will automatically recognize the fast charge
mode, temporarily identifying only the QC2.0 and CQ3.0 modes. Other
mode recognition is temporarily not supported.
…”
For sure, “temporarily” should be read here as “until now”.
Which QC mode(s) the L5 power supply and the L5 are supporting and with which protocol this is negociated?
Librem 5 does not support QC protocols (especially when Qualcomm® Quick Charge™ technology not translated wrongly).
For our interest here, this document is very important initial document (prior to recent ones, and latest one defining PD3.1), let me sort it as historical one, official one that belongs to this thread: https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB_Type-C_Compliance_Document_rev_1_2.pdf. It defines our environment. Therefore please go back to this post:
P.S. No unnecessary comments of mine this evening (I hope). And might post this weekend some photo of QC3.0 charging typical Android smartphone. Also, as almost certain, your USB gadget is actually dedicated QC charging protocol tester (support for QC2.0, QC3.0 charging protocols is broad/mature one).
This will not happen (but still load latest firmware there) while USB testers (its hardware, see two links I already provided as well) that can read all charging protocols are rare (just first two in this linked selection): https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/H69802b84951f45c8b010635c3d281199B.jpg.
EDIT: I just found (and can order it) C0+ bidirectional one (I do not project any need for other or better one), currently not too expensive:
*C0+ has an introductory table and only provides simple protocols − as translated from above link.
I think what this may mean in practice is: It only identifies those modes correctly. PD 3.0 will work (if the phone and charger both support it, as is the case here) but it will be misidentified on the screen of the USB meter.
