USB Type C (USB2.0) Wiring

[suku]

I'm want to upgrade one of my designs to use the newer USB type-C connector. In the design, I use an Atmel micro, USB2.0 through a Micro USB connector.

Since the type C connector is reversible I assume I should directly connect A6 to B6 (D+) and A7 to B7 (D-), I can also short all the ground pins together, but I'm not sure about the rest of the pins...

Pinout: https://e2e.ti.com/resized-image/__size/600x0/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-00-03-25/8715.USB-Type_2D00_C-protection_5F00_Figure-2.jpg

I don't need Power Dilivery (PD) or any special feature, I just want to use it for USB2.0 ...

If anyone has experience designing with type C, please help me.
Thanks!

[suku]

So if I understand correctly I need to connect
 - A6 to B6 (D+) to D+ on the micro
 - A7 to B7 (D-) to D- on the micro
 - A4 to A9 to B4 to B9 (VBUS) to VCC (+5V) on the micro
 - A5 (CC1) to GND via 5k1 Resistor
 - B5 (CC2) to GND via another 5k1 Resistor
 - A1 to A12 to B1 to B12 (GND) to Ground

is this correct?

[suku]

Ok thanks, I'll look into it...

[exmadscientist]

Looks right to me. It will also work fine for most applications if you leave out the 5.1k CC resistors; if you're using 2.0-A to Type-C cables, as most people do, the host will never know the resistors are or aren't there. But that's no excuse for skipping them.

Do note that Type-C footprints can be a pain to route with common design rules, particularly the vertical ones. The standards committee seems to have had microvias or at least via-in-pad in mind when designing them.

[pigrew]

Do note that Type-C footprints can be a pain to route with common design rules, particularly the vertical ones. The standards committee seems to have had microvias or at least via-in-pad in mind when designing them.

Type-C connector layout, made easy! (Texas Instrumens)

[amitchell]

I would use a hybrid connector with the B pins being through hole, I found that easiest to route.

https://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/jae-electronics/DX07S024XJ1R1100/670-2848-1-ND/5604380

[exmadscientist]

Type-C connector layout, made easy! (Texas Instrumens)

Nice link, but I don't know that I'd call 3/3 trace/space with 16/8 vias "common" design rules. Compare, for example, OSH Park's 5/5 and 18/10 rules for 4L boards. I also think the vertical mount connectors with shield are even nastier than the mid mount ones; the shield ring really makes escaping anything on layer 1 challenging.

That said, if one needs the SS pairs, I'd hope tight design rules are within budget, for sanity's sake if nothing else....

[lpc32]

Don't you find it confusing that on the receptacle side A5 and B5 are called CC1 and CC2, but on the plug side they're called CC and Vconn?

[amitchell]

Don't you find it confusing that on the receptacle side A5 and B5 are called CC1 and CC2, but on the plug side they're called CC and Vconn?

Maybe this will help you out

http://microchipdeveloper.com/usb:tc-pins

[Stwspoon]

This may also help out wit replacing USB 2.0 connectors
http://www.microchip.com//wwwAppNotes/AppNotes.aspx?appnote=en574170

"
Description: The USB Type-C? Specification was introduced in August 2014 and substantially expands the capabilities of USB. To take advantage of this expanded feature set, the cost of implementation per USB port can increase significantly. However, low-cost designs are still possible. This application note describes how to implement a basic USB Type-C Upstream Facing Port with a select few discrete components that will make the migration from legacy Type-B, mini B, micro B designs simple and low cost.
"

Stan

[krho]

Low cost usb-c ROFLMAO connectors even in the 1000pcs are 3 times more expensive than their micro/mini counterparts. And don't let me get started on the PD. You can't build low cost device for the same $ as with micro usb and old BC 1.2.

[lpc32]

Oh, I just meant the naming. Maybe calling it CCVC1 and CCVC2 would be more self-explanatory.

[Glowtape]

Anyone here using mid-mount type of USB-C receptacles? How did you actually implement the reversibility? From what I see in the OP is that cables have the D+/D- lines on one side only, which came kind of unexpected. I have a bunch of mid-mount receptacles from TE, and I didn't connect the D+/D- pins of the B-row, because traces would cross, nor is there space for vias.

See this schema:

So, uh, how am I supposed to implement reversibility without resorting to copper-on-edge? Their product brief mentions reversibility. I feel I'm missing some important tidbit.

--edit: Erasing most of the pads of the B-row and draw traces?

[amitchell]

Anyone here using mid-mount type of USB-C receptacles? How did you actually implement the reversibility? From what I see in the OP is that cables have the D+/D- lines on one side only, which came kind of unexpected. I have a bunch of mid-mount receptacles from TE, and I didn't connect the D+/D- pins of the B-row, because traces would cross, nor is there space for vias.

See this schema:

So, uh, how am I supposed to implement reversibility without resorting to copper-on-edge? Their product brief mentions reversibility. I feel I'm missing some important tidbit.

--edit: Erasing most of the pads of the B-row and draw traces?

Vias to other layers.

That layout is a bit harder to layout than a hybrid connector that has through holes for the B-Row.

https://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/jae-electronics/DX07B024XJ1R1300/670-2849-1-ND/5604381

[Glowtape]

There's not much space for vias. So ditching some of the pads then, to make room?

--edit: Yea, probably easier to go with a hybrid one.

[Aswinth]

Hi, I am aware that the thread is very old but I am having the exact same problem.

I want to up grade to Type-C just for its reversible feature, I am bit confused on how to get this work. My understanding and reference of Type-C USB connector comes from this website
https://components101.com/connectors/usb-type-c-connector-pinout-datasheet'

I have used the multimeter and striped the cable to check how the wiring goes, but I am not able to attain the reversible feature. Also these connectors are rated for 5A as per the link above, but the wires inside the cable does not seem to be thick enough for 5A, should I find a suitable cable for that?

I am building a small ECU for my E-bike using pic this main ECU module should connect to a small SOC module though USB type-C, the SOC module receives power and transmits data through this connector 

[janoc]

It is all explained here:
https://www.reclaimerlabs.com/blog/2016/12/31/usb-c-for-engineers-part-1
https://www.reclaimerlabs.com/blog/2017/1/12/usb-c-for-engineers-part-2

However, if this is going to be on a bike, USB-C is a terrible connector choice. It is not particularly mechanically robust - consider the vibrations and thermal cycles (bike parked in direct Sun, then cooled by the air while moving, etc.). I would look for different ways of achieving what you want (and maybe a different SoC module if the current one has the USB-C connector as the only option).

[LapTop006]

However, if this is going to be on a bike, USB-C is a terrible connector choice. It is not particularly mechanically robust - consider the vibrations and thermal cycles (bike parked in direct Sun, then cooled by the air while moving, etc.). I would look for different ways of achieving what you want (and maybe a different SoC module if the current one has the USB-C connector as the only option).

Standard USB-C, sure.

However one neat thing that was done during USB-C standardisation was to also standardise screw-locked versions of the connectors.

Example connector from Amphenol

[SiliconWizard]

However, if this is going to be on a bike, USB-C is a terrible connector choice. It is not particularly mechanically robust - consider the vibrations and thermal cycles (bike parked in direct Sun, then cooled by the air while moving, etc.). I would look for different ways of achieving what you want (and maybe a different SoC module if the current one has the USB-C connector as the only option).

Yes. The USB-C locking mechanism is terrible.
That said, must admit I've yet to see one of those connectors fail though after heavy use.
Mini-USB was worse overall regarding locking. Micro-USB only marginally better, but too flimsy for my taste.

[janoc]

Yes. The USB-C locking mechanism is terrible.
That said, must admit I've yet to see one of those connectors fail though after heavy use.
Mini-USB was worse overall regarding locking. Micro-USB only marginally better, but too flimsy for my taste.

It is not so much that the connector itself fails but they most often break off the PCB unless heavily mechanically restrained (e.g. by a clamshell-like case like in a smartphone). That was a problem with micro USB too to a degree.

Re locking - mini USB I have never really seen to wear out but a typical mini USB on a camera or USB hub typically doesn't see that many cycles. 

Micro USB on the other hand is terrible. Due to where these are used and the shape of the connector it will stop retaining the cable after a while (even a new cable). The shape is not obvious during insertion (one has to look really carefully) and it is possible to try to insert the connector in the wrong orientation, deforming/bending the shell in the process. It is probably also due to the fact that these connectors are used as charging connectors for phones, tablets and similar devices where there are tons of plug/unplug cycles, so they inevitably end up damaged after a while. It is a very flimsy connector for such use.

Hopefully USB C is going to be better because of the "no wrong orientation" (so no chance to deform the shell unless doing something really stupid) but the way most of these need to be mechanically mounted and the PCB routing issues make it a royal pain in the backside.

However one neat thing that was done during USB-C standardisation was to also standardise screw-locked versions of the connectors.

Example connector from Amphenol

Haven't seen these before, nice!

[M@rcel]

I know this is an old topic, but this may be of interest for those who want to use a USB type C connector for their USB2.0 host/device:
USB4110 made by GCT


Easy to route for USB2.0, even on two layers.

HTH

[geeky]

Just stumbled upon this old thread when searching for USB-C connectors for USB-2.0-devices and just want to add for those also landing here:
The JAE DX07S016JA3R1500/DX07S016JA1R1500 also look interesting for using USB-C for USB 2.0-devices
(16-Pin single-row pinout with D+ directly next to each other)

[bson]

For USB 2.0, use a 16P receptacle.  Like this one (except I only use it for power on this particular board).
https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Hirose-Connector/CX90M-16P?qs=%2Fha2pyFaduiJAXa2fpvvaFz7iYNnSV6ZdmE7dNExFVA4g652Jzdfmw%3D%3D

A6-B7 and A7-B6 are adjacent on the 16P footprints, making them easy to jumper.
The footprint is from the KiCad library: Connector_USB:USB_C_Receptacle_XKB_U262-16XN-4BVC11