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
