Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

RE: Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

shabaz — Fri, 03 Feb 2017 16:52:04 GMT

Looks like there will be a Cypress CY7C65213 dev-kitCypress CY7C65213 dev-kit available soon.

Just to keep the info easy to find: Microchip MCP2221 notes: Building a USB UART Serial Adapter

Microchip MCP2221 gerber files: HAL-CAM 9001 - Building a Power over Ethernet (PoE) Supply (discussed in the comments section).

I'm looking forward to trying the Cypress part, it has some cool features and 1.8V support.

RE: Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

mcb1 — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:09:12 GMT

I ran across these links while reading the comments on Hackaday.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11011638

It seems that despite buying a part from a retutable supplier, this customer got stung because it contained a fake FTDI chip.

The other interesting one is the abilitty to purchase your own PID at a reasonable price. (EUR 14.95)

http://www.mcselec.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=92&category_id=20&option=com_…

I do like how BasCom would not be bullied by the USB-org

Mark

RE: Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

shabaz — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:37:56 GMT

The responses to Adafruit's questions that they sent across to FTDI were published today.

https://blog.adafruit.com/2016/02/08/exclusive-interview-with-fred-dart-ceo-of-ftdi-ftdichip-ftdi-adafruit/

RE: Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

dragonstyne — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 23:47:22 GMT

Excellent work Shabaz.

I agree with the with the crowd. I think it's bad form for them to have done this in the first place but, such is life.

Companies do this all the time. Instead of pursuing a legal route and go after the people who who they beleive, may or may not, have stolen their "intilectual products", they end up basically hurting the people that are supposed be developing it for in the first place, the end user.

Nice work,

[][][]Steve

RE: Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

ntewinkel — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 19:59:52 GMT

Great writeup, Shabaz!

I agree, if any client asked me I would highly recommend staying away from FTDI parts - the risk of a product turning into a (support / return / customer loss) nightmare is much too high for such an small part, especially if other options are available. Arduino was smart to avoid it all this time.

If FTDI had built their drivers this way from the start, any fake parts would have failed long before going out to market, and that would have been much more acceptable. Them doing so after the fact is just plain wrong.

Cheers,

-Nico

RE: Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

DAB — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 19:56:45 GMT

Unfortunately I have seen companies try to eliminate competition using these types of technics.

As they soon found out, the specification is open, so anyone can create their own decoder and interface chips.

What FTDI did opened them up for law suits by aggressively making your equipment useless regardless of whether you knew the device was official or not. Big no-no for customer appreciation.

The old days of exclusivity for custom devices are mostly gone. The basic functions and community compatibility requirements make it very difficult to exclude anyone with engineering skills from duplicating your efforts.

I can understand the frustration of FTDI, but the law just does not support their actions, so they were wrong.

Apple comes to mind as one of the past offenders of open systems, which is why you see so few third vendor support devices for their products.

DAB

RE: Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

johnbeetem — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:18:26 GMT

Personally, I think it's stupid for FTDI to do this. While I understand that they are legitimately upset at counterfeit chips and want to do something to stop them, the reality is that most end users aren't sophisticated enough to know why their serial product is failing (especially since it used to work before Windows upgraded their FTDI driver). If FTDI wants to do something like this, the driver should pop up an error message on the screen when the device is detected, not do something that requires a diagnosing the TX line. Otherwise people will simply design something other than an FT232 into their products. As one of the comment says at the linked EEVblog: "Seems they are doing their best to makes sure no one wants anything [that] says FTDI on it. Killing the market for FTDI chips will solve the problem of fakes, but probably kill FTDI in the process."

The best work-around, of course, is to ditch the closed-source Windows FTDI driver and use Linux so you have open-source code. But I guess some people need that thrilling air of mystery that surrounds each Windows automatic update to make life exciting [View:/resized-image/__size/16x16/__key/commentfiles/f7d226abd59f475c9d224a79e3f0ec07-6e6e71b9-3195-4026-949e-ebc23741b9c9/contentimage_5F00_1.png:16:16]

I hope FTDI doesn't self-destruct. I really like the FT2232D/H or FT232H as a JTAG/SPI chip for talking to FPGAs.

RE: Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

clem57 — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 09:24:00 GMT

Seems to me a USB device should enumerate and push driver code that works with that chip set. No driver would be needed by the user. Right?

Clem

RE: Implementing Non-FTDI USB-to-UART Serial Interfaces

mcb1 — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 08:52:42 GMT

Very nice write-up.

I do agree that support long after companies move on is going to be an issue.

Many embedded devices could still be running 25-30 years from now.

If you think that is a fallacy then just think 25 years ago is 1991.

Mark