There is a reason for USB-C extensions not to be part of the standard. They can be bothersome in the best case and dangerous in the worst.
That’s an active extension cable, which is essentially a single port USB hub.
Shouldn’t it be possible to only do the negotiation part and otherwise bridge everything? Not having to do anything high-bandwidth actively should keep the silicon costs down.
Yes, and such cables already exist, like this splitter cable:
https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0CRZ6JJ6D (not an affiliate link)
It’s not an extension cable, but it does exactly what you are suggesting. It gets the available PD profiles from the charger and then intelligently negotiates a profile that will work best to split the power to the 2 devices connected to it. The charger thinks it’s just connected to 1 device, and the connected devices think they are directly connected to a charger.
Doing the same for with a USB C extension would be trivial, but it’s probably hard to market such a cable when passive USB c extension cables are available at a fraction of the cost, even if those aren’t compliant to the USB standard
I wish there was a clearer explanation or nomenclature for this. With things like cables and converters everything always seems to have a black box layer.
I don’t understand why there are so many PD profiles either. Maybe Cat-1 USB-C, Cat-2 USB-C, etc? Maybe just having a smaller set of voltage-defined profiles that have a safe maximum current rating? Maybe that’s already how it is? I don’t know
