On 04/12/15 01:09, Grant Likely wrote:
On 3 Dec 2015 22:32, "Kevin Hilman" <firstname.lastname@example.org mailto:email@example.com> wrote:
Grant Likely <firstname.lastname@example.org mailto:email@example.com> writes:
On 3 Dec 2015 07:46, "Victor Chong" <firstname.lastname@example.org
On Thursday, December 3, 2015, Kevin Hilman <email@example.com
aaaaah! I wasn't expecting partial output on UART0, then on UART3.
Yea.. the partial output can usually be ignored for the most part
you're working on those components directly.
After setting the right jumper settings on the UART board, I'm now seeing the BL1 on UART0 and the rest on UART3 (a.k.a. UART1 on
board... which is also confusing.)
It's more confusing than that. The UART board gives you UART2 & UART3. UART0 isn't available to it.
I suspect it's likely that hikey will not be the only one to have SoC UART numbering different that the UART board numbering. Maybe the UART board options should have different names, like UART_A and UART_B ?
FWIW, I've been referring to them as LS-UART0 and LS-UART1. I agree that we should have a consistent naming convention. Same goes for the i2c buses.
That's exactly the terminology I've been using too (and I think independently).
Adding an LS- prefix does still risk confusion but is much easy to apply retrospectively to the specs...