Bandwidth is symmetrical, control is not
Bandwidth is symmetrical, control is not
Posted Jun 12, 2009 20:35 UTC (Fri) by Steve_Baker (guest, #265)In reply to: Bandwidth is symmetrical, control is not by khim
Parent article: Linux first to offer USB 3.0 driver (Linux Devices)
If the 3.0 controllers support the USB On The Go (OTG) extension, it might
not be a problem (although it may still require a special cable for
electrical reasons,) otherwise I suppose PC to PC USB would continue to
require a bridge chip. A bridge chip can probably be made decently fast,
but would still introduce latency. Since 3.0 allows for slave initiated
communications I suspect a bridge chip will be unnecessary. Furthermore
the spec seems to specify a special A to A cable for debugging and "other
host-to-host connection applications." I'm cautiously optimistic as it
really seems like 3.0 is taking on Firewire which has always had this
capability.
not be a problem (although it may still require a special cable for
electrical reasons,) otherwise I suppose PC to PC USB would continue to
require a bridge chip. A bridge chip can probably be made decently fast,
but would still introduce latency. Since 3.0 allows for slave initiated
communications I suspect a bridge chip will be unnecessary. Furthermore
the spec seems to specify a special A to A cable for debugging and "other
host-to-host connection applications." I'm cautiously optimistic as it
really seems like 3.0 is taking on Firewire which has always had this
capability.
As far as the network topology goes, at the USB level it would just be a
point to point link, one end a host/master, the other a device/slave. The
mesh network wouldn't be handled at the USB protocol layer, but at a
higher layer.
I'm not saying it's going to work the way I'd like, just that it might,
I'm keeping my fingers crossed.