> But for your future contributions, remember to put a short changelog here > under the cut-off (---) line when revising patches. My apology will include that next time. > > These configurations were not mentioned in the commit message. Are they > also used for embedded designs? Looks like the table I provided in the commit message is mismatched with the one that I intended to check in for upstream. Let me correct this, the one that I published for upstream was the actual tested code, whereby we want the UART to be exposed to the ftdi_sio driver. Below is the updated table, 1) PID 0x6022, FT2232, 1 JTAG port(Port A) + Port B as UART 2) PID 0x6025, FT4232, 1 JTAG port(Port A) + Port C as UART 3) PID 0x6026, FT4232, 1 JTAG port(Port A) + Port C, D as UART 4) PID 0x6029, FT4232, 1 JTAG port(Port B) + Port C as UART 5) PID 0x602a, FT4232, 1 JTAG port(Port B) + Port C, D as UART 6) PID 0x602c, FT4232, 1 JTAG port(Port A) + Port B as UART 7) PID 0x602d, FT4232, 1 JTAG port(Port A) + Port B, C as UART 8) PID 0x602e, FT4232, 1 JTAG port(Port A) + Port B, C, D as UART Since we need UART to be exposed to the ftdi_sio driver and the cable USB Blaster does not support UART, will reword that on the commit message to remove the cable USB Blaster and left only the on-board USB Blaster. Will submit a v3 on this, with the reworded commit message plus the change log.
