On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:12:09AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 30.11.2016 09:02, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > On 2016-11-30 08:33, Thomas Huth wrote: > >> On 30.11.2016 02:01, Tom Rini wrote: > >>> Hey all, > >>> > >>> I'm trying to make use of the r2d platform for U-Boot testing via QEMU. > >>> After applying a series[1] I can use the kernel.org sh4 toolchain to get > >>> a u-boot.bin that runs, mostly. I say mostly as first of all I have to > >>> pass "-monitor null -serial null -serial stdio -nographic" to > >>> qemu-system-sh4 and in that order for me to get output from U-Boot on > >>> the prompt. On other platforms such as arm and vexpress or i386 and the > >>> 'pc' machine I do not need to do this. Does anyone have any idea why > >>> this might be and where to start poking in the code to fix this? > > > > The reason is that u-boot and the linux kernel do not have the same way > > to number the serial port than the physical hardware. Therefore u-boot > > and the Linux kernel use the second physical serial port .The question is > > whether we should number our ports from the software (or part of the > > sofrware) or hardware point of view. > > OK, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense now. ... maybe we > should put this information on a SH4 machine page under > http://qemu-project.org/Documentation/Platforms so that users have a > possibility to understand this serial port numbering?
I'm still a bit confused, sorry. Digging around a bit I guess what is happening is that serial_hds[0] is being used, but Linux and U-Boot expect to use serial_hds[1] and that's what the above combination of arguments is getting me? How would I go about saying in a more simple form perhaps, to use the second described port not the first described port? Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
