On 7/10/24 01:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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 > I understand your statement now. Are there any other paths you can suggest for a minimal configuration to be accepted? Thanks, Logan Bristol
