Change K64F D8 pin from PTA0->PTC12

[BlackstoneEngineering]

Description

Modifying D8 to reflect latest hardare changes in RevD hardware
#2933

[BlackstoneEngineering]

Another win for the CI Test Shield

[0xc0170]

What people do with older revisions? This can be considered a breaking change? however PTA0 is not jtag pin? :-))

[bridadan]

@BlackstoneEngineering like @0xc0170 said will this affect older revisions? Have you tested older revisions?

[BlackstoneEngineering]

I have not tested on older versions. If we are not going to change this then we need to mark that pin as unusable. As it stands anyone who buys a board gets screwed, and will continue to going forward.

[bridadan]

I think a warning on the platform page about the inconsistency would be the best bet for now, like you said

[BlackstoneEngineering]

Dude, its been a couple years now, we should just assume the majority of boards are RevD, all we're doing now is cripling the existing line and the majority of boards for backwards compatibility. I think the note on the platforms page should address the different hardware revisions and instruct users to use the microcontroller pin names for older platforms, thus keeping the Arduino pin names updates to the latest hardware revision.

[mnorman4]

I agree with @BlackstoneEngineering. The RevD platform is stable and is the majority platform in use today. Older rev users can drop down to the MCU pin names instead of the header pin names. (FYI @mmahadevan108)

[mmahadevan108]

The commit message should be corrected to PTA0->PTC12.

@mnorman4 The below link says rev E3 in the picture showing Arduino headers, this should be changed to rev E4.
https://developer.mbed.org/platforms/FRDM-K64F/

Thanks.

[BlackstoneEngineering]

done

[0xc0170]

LGTM

Thanks @mnorman4 !

[BlackstoneEngineering]

@mnorman4 Do you think it would be appropriate to add a <note> </note> just under the K64F pinout on the platform page warning about different pins for different revisions? Otherwise it is entirely possible for an end user to run into this issue and not be able to figure it out.

[bridadan]

@BlackstoneEngineering +1 for adding the <note> </note> on the platform page!