The fix doesn’t appear to concern 30w chargers (or any <20W)…
If the current is below 4.75V, this is below the usb minimum voltage specification.
The current fluctuations could be caused by two things, either under-voltage protection kicking in on the PD controller, or more likely, the charger IC going below the AC present voltage threshold. However this is set to around 4.2V.
Generally I would suggest you use a charger that does not droop so much. Most chargers will output 5.1V or so to account for cable voltage droop.
We are working at refreshing the PD firmware to a newer sdk version in a later firmware update for the system, and we can investigate some of these additional issues at that time.
3 Likes
I have been doing experiments with up to 5.5V and even then, there have been issues sometimes (though, to be honest, I did testing with 2 meter (~6 ft) cables which I have not resistance tested).
While, the USB “5V nominal” is defined by ±5%, so anywhere between 4.75V and 5.25V, that is defined at the port.
Looking at the USB-C spec (https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%20R2.0%20-%20August%202019.pdf, page 140), source-to-sink drop (including connectors) is defined as 250mV on GND, 500mV on VBUS at the cable’s current capacity.
That means, for a standard 60W USB-C cable hooked up to a 5V charger, a worst case scenario of only ~4V actually reaching the laptop (4.75V at the charger, 0.25V loss on GND, 0.5V loss on VBUS).
Of course, this is an unlikely case because chargers usually tend to go more towards 5.25V rather than 4.75V, but even then, the laptop needs be able to charge with around 4.5V realistically, or if it can’t (due to hardware limitations), it should at least reduce the current to restore the voltage to a level where it can charge safely without oscillating.
Edit:
Best case: charger at 5.25V, 100mOhm cable => 4.95V
Typical case: charger at 5.1V, 200mOhm cable => 4.5V
Worst case (still in spec!): charger at 4.75V, 250mOhm cable => 4V
For reference, the official Framework 6ft 100W cable (which is specified to 5A even, instead of just 3A) seems to measure around 160mOhm, which, even with a 5.2V charger, only leaves ~4.72V at the device.
5 Likes
It mostly concerns sub 30W ones the ones above that are more likely to not tap out if the device erroneously draws 3A at a higher voltage for a bit, for a sub 20W one that is at least twice it’s max current at even 12V.
I have personally seen a few of my sub 20W chargers ocp loop while others just gave up after the first attempt.
One of the ways in which I think kickstarting works is that the negotiation happens without any power draw.
There may still be other issues but this one is the major one and finding the smaller ones is quite hard in the shadow of the big one.
3 Likes
It does concern 30W chargers as well, as “low wattage 20V chargers” includes chargers (commonly) up to 45W (20V 2.25A) (be aware of the different units: Power in Watts, Voltage in Volts, Current in Amps).
Additionally, some lower voltage chargers are affected as well (like 9V 2A (18W) chargers, 12V 1.67A (20W) chargers, etc.)
The current negotiation flow (from my understanding) is:
- Charger advertises 5V 3A via resistor
- Framework starts charging with 3A
- Charger advertises higher voltage via PD (for example, 20V 1A in a 20W charger)
- Frameworks requests higher voltage while still pulling 3A
- Charger increases voltage and goes into overcurrent protection
The new flow is:
- Charger advertises 5V 3A via resistor
- Framework starts charging with 3A
- Charger advertises higher voltage via PD
- Framework requests higher voltage while reducing the current to 0.5A
- Charger increases voltage
- Framework increases current to the advertised one (e.g. 1A for a 20V 20W charger)
This should fix the issue with all chargers all the way from 9V 1.67A (15W) up to 20V 2.25A (45W).
It does not however, change anything about the issues with 5V-only chargers (up to 15W)
5 Likes
Good point I guess that is a separate issue. Interresting that the same workaround works for both now. The again even with kickstarting the behavior on 5V only sources is a bit weird.
3 Likes
We’ve already posted a warning regarding personal attacks and it seems to have gone unheeded.
The next step is to lock the thread, which we’d rather not do since it is meant to solve an issue for a lot of users.
Let’s focus on the technical information and the incoming fix please, or else the thread gets locked which doesn’t help.
7 Likes
Hmm, I’m attempting to work out what has caused this warning. a quick glance at all the posts between your two warnings doesn’t seem to have any personal attacks that I can see, and specifically the last four posts before this one of yours appear to be a quite reasonable technical discussion.
I’m lost as to why this warning post. 
1 Like
There have been a few deleted posts.
Oh, OK.
Thanks for the clarification.
I’m in contact with support.
They asked me several questions, and I had to try plugging the charger with/without expansion port, different ports, etc.
We’ll see.
The most annoying thing for me is, that I bought a laptop which is advertised as being compatible with all my chargers, yet is not compatible with any of them.
Even when you buy a new laptop now; it doesn’t mention on the website that it’s incompatible with many chargers.
While it’s a known issue. I think that is not fair.
Neither is not giving any (up)date of a solution.
See this post AMD Framework USB-C charger compatibility issues - #93 by Kieran_Levin
There is a fix in testing.
1 Like
Thanks, I understand.
But “Which will get into our next bios release.” simply does not suffice if you’d ask me.
Daily, for 4 months, I’m bringing my charger from work, to be able to use my laptop at home.
I’d really like to know when that’s going to end.
And it would be nice if this was mentioned as a known issue in the specs of the laptop upon purchase in the last months.
Like “Please consider purchasing our official charger, since many other chargers are currently not working”.
Every single customer in the past months has bought a laptop with a charger-issue and would not be aware of that.
3 Likes
Well it’s not supposed to be, that’s a bug XD
Same
In fairness it is kind of an edge case and most users will never even get the idea to try and use a sub 45W charger but it would really be nice if it was fixed soon, especially since it almost works as it is.
You may still want to get a 65+W charger though if you are using it somewhat heavily while plugged in so it has to dip into the battery less during high loads.
3 Likes
Sure, but it remains a fact that that “spec” is not valid. Until it is fixed.
You can’t say “This laptop does A”, while it is not able to do “A” due to a bug.
Then that should be temporarily removed from the specsheet until it is fixed.
I’m using multiple MiniX Neo P1. Which supports 66W, PD3.0/QC4+/QC3.0.
These are the ones that give the issue.
1 Like
What exact “spec” are you referring to?
Not even sure that one is covered by the known issue, it looks like it should be able to do 3+A all the way to 20V, guess we’ll see when the update comes out. Assuming it’s the only device connected to the charger of course.
Multiple examples, but one is this:
“We recommend using a 60W or greater USB-PD compatible USB-C power adapter”.
Suggesting that any charger conforming to PD standard should work.
Also not sure, but it makes sense.
It charges all my other laptops/phones/tablets, so the charger is fine.
A lenovo laptopcharger works fine on my framework, so charging itself is not an issue.
Great thing about specifications, just like standards, there are so many ways to interpret them and still be conforming.
1 Like
I really don’t understand why there are so many posts defending Framework on this topic. It is an identified, recognized and even "fixed internally "issue which affects an essential capability of the laptop for many users.
I have 5 laptops in my household - Apple, Lenovo, Dell, HP and Framework. I have never had a USB-C PD charging problem with any laptop, including the ones I own, except the Framework. And there are 120 posts on this topic in the forum, more on Reddit and even more scattered across other topics.
At the same time @patagona pretty much identified the root cause of the issue back in November. 1 month ago @Kieran_Levin confirmed that there is a fix in testing.
Unfortunately, resolution now gets caught up in the BIOS update process at Framework, which based on history is extremely poor (12th gen BIOS update anyone?!). And which is also needed to fix the freezes and BSOD issues that are affecting many AMD users (another thread of over 250 posts).
Some are (IMHO rightly) pointing out that the FW16 BIOS got fixed within days of the Verge finding issues in their samples. Yet FW13 AMD users are still waiting. And all for bugs which arguably should have been detected and fixed before shipping the initial product since they fundamentally affect the basic functioning of the laptop.
I like what Framework is trying to do, but there is more to providing a sustainable laptop than hardware. Basic quality and sustainable software are license to operate.
(Side note: for those who would like to understand how precise the USB-PD standard is - USB Power Delivery | USB-IF)
9 Likes
Yes I agree, the slowliness of Framework on the software side is really an issue…
I’m really annoyed to not be able to use my small 45w charger … It was running fine on 3.02 but not on 3.03 and now I have to move around with a 100W brick… 
Framework should at least to communicate about a timeline about this. Any update @Kieran_Levin ? 