Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: ti: Add support for TI J722S Evaluation Module

["Michael Walle" <mwalle@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2186 bytes --]

Hi,

On Wed Feb 14, 2024 at 10:42 AM CET, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
> On 14/02/24 13:13, Vaishnav Achath wrote:
> > On 12/02/24 21:32, Michael Walle wrote:
> >> On Tue Feb 6, 2024 at 11:06 AM CET, Vaishnav Achath wrote:
> >>> +# Boards with J722s SoC
> >>> +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_K3) += k3-j722s-evm.dtb
> >>
> >> I'm a bit confused by your names. What are the new/correct ones now?
> >> Some seem to use the amXX names and some the jXX ones. I've read [1]
> >> and it appears it was suggested to use the am67 names for the device
> >> trees. Esp. because there is already, am62, am64, am65, am68 and
> >> am69 in as names for the device trees.
> >>
> >> The TRM you've linked in the cover letter doesn't shed much light
> >> either. It just lists both.
> >>
> > 
> > Both names are correct, for other Jacinto devices J721S2 and J784S4, the
> > industrial variants (AM68, AM69 respectively) and those boards were
> > announced at a later point of time and since the automotive/J7 variants
> > were introduced first, the SoC dtsi and files have the J7XX names, for
> > AM62/AM64 there is no confusion in naming, in this case the initial TRM
> > itself mentions J722S and AM67 variants with similar capabilities, the
> > reasoning behind continuing with the J722S name is because the initial
> > support is being added for J722S EVM (the top marking on the SoC package
> > populated on the EVM say XJ722SAMW, this can be seen in the schematics
> > also), please let know if this clarifies the confusion.
> > 
>
> AM64,AM62x/A/P are from different product line (Sitara) and don't have
> any other aliases.
>
> On the other hand, Jacinto SoCs have both J7xx variant and AM6xx part
> numbers. Its being really unpredictable wrt when AM6xx variants of
> Jacinto devices come out. So as a general rule, we name the DTS files
> based on the name of the first device that comes out in the market which
> has consistently been J7xx.

Thanks for the explanation. I just noticed that any k3-am6[89]*
device trees will include the j7xx SoC dtsi. That would have been my
next question: Boards with the AMxx will have the "correct" name
k3-amNN-*.

-michael

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]