Re: [RFC] arm64: dts: ti: introduce a minimal am642 device tree

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 09/07/2024 18:20, Logan Bristol wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> On 3/22/22 13:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/03/2022 16:54, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
>>> Texas Instrument's am642 is one of many k3 based, low cost, low power,
>>> chips designed to work in a wide range of applications spanning an even
>>> wider range of industries that TI is actively developing
>>>
>>> With its pin-mux and peripheral rich designs, these chips will likely
>>> have a multitude of custom device trees that range wildly from one
>>> another and (hopefully) guarantee an influx of variants into the kernel
>>> in the coming years
>>>
>>> With overlays no longer a thing, I wanted to ask for opinions on how
>>> we can best help integrate these dt files as they begin to be developed
>>>
>>> I also wanted to introduce a skeletonized (nothing but uart) device tree
>>> to give others a good starting point while developing their projects.
>>
>> Real hardware as DTS please. There is no need to add some skeleton for
>> specific SoC. What if every SoC goes that way?
>>
>> Feel free to create re-usable components in DTSI ways, still reflecting
>> some hardware parts.
>>
> 
> I am working on a project for the AM62 and came across this email thread.
> 
> Following Krzysztof's direction, I am wanting to submit a DTSI to serve
> as a minimal configuration for the existing boards based on the AM62
> SoC, which are currently defined by bloated DTS files.
> 
> This DTSI file can be consumed by other board DTS files to reduce the
> configuration. Krzysztof, could this be merged upstream?

Aren't you writing something contradictory to what I wrote above? I do
not see your description matching my earlier guideline.

Best regards,
Krzysztof