applet.iterface.uart_pinout: UART pinout applet #1012
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The previous `UART` implementation required being connected to physical pins, but this change allows specifying an arbitrary `UARTBus` implementation for `UART`s that make no assumptions about what they're connected to.
Adds a uart-pinout applet that functions similar to the JTAGulator implementation for determining UART pinouts. Essentially this just sends data to the selected pins at various baud rates and looks for an echo. The default just sends a carriage return (0x0d) if no data is set, but the user can send arbitrary binary data up to 0xFF bytes long.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a much simpler version of #1009 , but it still depends on #1010. Re-opening this pull request before I forget. I've tested this a few times alongside the JTAGulator and they both have similar results. If #1010 isn't accepted I can update this to use whatever scheme is proposed instead of that.