On 14/02/24 13:13, Vaishnav Achath wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On 12/02/24 21:32, Michael Walle wrote: >> Hi, >> >> 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. -- Regards Vignesh
