On Wed, 2026-02-11 at 18:52 -0600, Andrew Davis wrote: > On 2/11/26 11:15 AM, Vitor Soares via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > Hi, > > > > While working on our Toradex Aquila AM69 SoM support, we noticed that k3.inc > > defines: > > > > SERIAL_CONSOLES = "115200;ttyS0 115200;ttyS2" > > > > This caused systemd to enable [email protected] on our board, where > > ttyS0 maps to main_uart4 - a user-facing UART, not a debug/console UART. The > > getty continuously outputs a login prompt, interfering with the interface. > > > > This made us question whether SERIAL_CONSOLES belongs in SoC-level include > > files > > at all. Our understanding is that the console getty is already handled > > automatically by systemd-getty-generator from the console= kernel command > > line argument, which makes SERIAL_CONSOLES potentially redundant for the > > console > > UART. Any additional UARTs beyond the console are board-specific and > > arguably > > belong in each machine config rather than a shared SoC include. > > > > We are not 100% certain about this reasoning and would love to hear the > > rationale behind the current approach. Are we missing something? Would it > > make > > sense to either remove SERIAL_CONSOLES from the SoC includes or at minimum > > use > > a weak assignment (?=) to allow boards to override cleanly? > > We simply noticed almost all our EVM boards used the same console UARTs and so > refactored the definition into a more common place. But yes you are correct > that a file like k3.inc seems like it should contain only items common to all > users of the K3 SoC family, and not simply common to TI EVM boards. Changing > the assignment in k3.inc to a weak one seem reasonable (although I think you > can still just override regular assignments after you include k3.conf in > your board conf) >
You're right we can override it in our board configs, but I wanted to share why we think this is worth reconsidering. The issue is that SERIAL_CONSOLES in k3.inc mixes SoC capabilities with board- specific UART usage. The K3 SoC provides the UART peripherals, but doesn't determine which ones are used for console, user interfaces, or other purposes - that's decided at the board level. Different boards use UARTs differently. On TI EVMs, ttyS2 or ttyS0 might be the debug console. On our Aquila AM69, ttyS2 is the console but ttyS0 is a user- facing UART. Same SoC, different UART assignments. SERIAL_CONSOLES creates getty login prompts on listed UARTs, which is a board/system integration concern. If TI's EVM boards share the same UART configuration, would it make sense to have a ti-evm-common.inc instead of putting it in the SoC include? Happy to help with refactoring if you think this direction makes sense. Thanks, Vitor > Andrew > > > > > Thanks, > > Vitor Soares > > Toradex > > > > > > > > > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#19500): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/19500 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/117760181/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
