From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.36621.1601908208910403285 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 07:30:09 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: arm.com, ip: 217.140.110.172, mailfrom: ard.biesheuvel@arm.com) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D04106F; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 07:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.81] (unknown [10.37.8.98]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B52B3F70D; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 07:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 1/1] Platform/RaspberryPi/ConfigDxe: Fix JTAG Pinout for Pi3/4 To: Pete Batard , Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud , "devel@edk2.groups.io" , "Andrei Warkentin (awarkentin@vmware.com)" , Jeff Booher-Kaeding Cc: Leif Lindholm References: <20200914213230.78282-1-jeff.booher-kaeding@arm.com> <3e9fb07b-a330-6a3a-0e0e-2221819c5483@akeo.ie> From: "Ard Biesheuvel" Message-ID: <4a00f26e-f7f2-be36-cfd8-8799afb72101@arm.com> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 16:30:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3e9fb07b-a330-6a3a-0e0e-2221819c5483@akeo.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10/5/20 2:07 PM, Pete Batard wrote: > With Andrei's reply, that's an RB for me: >=20 > On 2020.09.29 15:01, Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud wrote: >> Thanks Pete and Andrei. Should we count these as RB or AB for the patc= h? >> >> Reviewed-by: Samer El-Haj-Mahmoud >> >> *From:* devel@edk2.groups.io *On Behalf Of=20 >> *Andrei Warkentin via groups.io >> *Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2020 4:01 PM >> *To:* Pete Batard ; Jeff Booher-Kaeding=20 >> ; devel@edk2.groups.io >> *Cc:* Ard Biesheuvel ; Leif Lindholm=20 >> >> *Subject:* Re: [edk2-devel] [PATCH v1 1/1]=20 >> Platform/RaspberryPi/ConfigDxe: Fix JTAG Pinout for Pi3/4 >> >> Hi folks, >> >> No objection at all. IIRC the original pin selection was driven by an=20 >> article I read about using OpenOCD with Pi 3. >> >> A >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------= -- >> >> *From:*Pete Batard > >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 15, 2020 7:26 AM >> *To:* Jeff Booher-Kaeding > >; devel@edk2.groups.io=20 >> > > >> *Cc:* Ard Biesheuvel > >; Leif Lindholm > >; Andrei Warkentin > > >> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] Platform/RaspberryPi/ConfigDxe: Fix JTAG= =20 >> Pinout for Pi3/4 >> >> Copying Andrei on this, as the existing JTAG pinout is not technically >> incorrect, since GPIO pin 4 can be used for TDI in ALT5 mode, and we a= re >> using the relevant ALT mode in the existing code. See >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fsy= sprogs.com%2FVisualKernel%2Ftutorials%2Fraspberry%2Fjtagsetup%2F&data= =3D02%7C01%7Cawarkentin%40vmware.com%7C1c1badf5e6f1433b44b508d859728a32%7= Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637357695767996220&sdata=3D= rGIzM4Io36gFJrAK%2F4xZs0fm0DpXVvamhOYYXfc09ek%3D&reserved=3D0=20 >> >> >> As far as I'm concerned, I think it makes sense to use the same ALT mo= de >> and have all the JTAG pins grouped, but I'd like to confirm whether we >> deliberately chose not to use GPIO 26 in order to leave it available f= or >> some other purpose, before I approve this patch. >> >> If Andrei says he's okay with it, then I see no objection to this chan= ge. >> >> Regards, >> >> /Pete >> >> On 2020.09.14 22:32, Jeff Booher-Kaeding wrote: >> =A0> Updated the pinout to match the Pi4 datasheet, tested with the=20 >> RPi4, Pi3 Datasheet has same pinout. >> =A0> >> =A0> Signed-off-by: Jeff Booher-Kaeding > > >> =A0> >> =A0> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel > > >> =A0> Cc: Leif Lindholm > >> =A0> Cc: Pete Batard > Pushed as fc49849a8ebc..8ef23e848b76 Thanks all,