From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45197) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eO68X-00020e-FA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:15:38 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eO68W-0002HN-EG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:15:37 -0500 Received: from mail-ot0-x244.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::244]:34480) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eO68W-0002Gl-8q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:15:36 -0500 Received: by mail-ot0-x244.google.com with SMTP id o23so13024663otd.1 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2017 10:15:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20171023122719.17199-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <10e16ca3-175b-9f34-65e7-031b883b7201@amsat.org> <20171026133445.kemzfgvpbmtcogsl@kamzik.brq.redhat.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:15:14 +0000 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-arm] [PATCH] hw/arm/virt: support 4 serial ports List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Cc: Andrew Jones , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu=2DDaud=C3=A9?= , QEMU Trivial , qemu-arm , QEMU Developers On 8 December 2017 at 18:39, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> My suggestion is that we should add a second non-secure UART >> to the virt board, so if you're using secure=no then you >> get serial 1 and 2, and for secure=yes serial 1 is the first >> NS uart, serial 2 is the secure uart and serial 3 is the >> 2nd NS uart. (I don't really want to add a 4th uart unless >> there's some good reason to -- maybe we would turn out to >> want it for the secure side, for instance.) > I'm curious why you don't want to add a 4th UART. It seems trivial to > do, and the more the merrier? Or that's a silly attitude? Mostly just > curious about that, as having two personally suits my needs. As I say, if we add it for the non-secure world we can't make it a secure uart later if that turns out to be what we need. The "4 uarts max" limit is a compile time one. (Also it uses physical address space in a region which is relatively small and which we might want for a different device.) thanks -- PMM