On 8 December 2017 at 18:39, Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > 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
