Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-64842-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <45bd5618-2e22-4715-9724-92f1d4b84608@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:13:44 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: ti: Add support for TI J722S
 Evaluation Module
Content-Language: en-US
To: Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>, Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com>, <nm@ti.com>,
        <vigneshr@ti.com>, <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, <kristo@kernel.org>,
        <robh+dt@kernel.org>
CC: <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <u-kumar1@ti.com>,
        <j-choudhary@ti.com>
References: <20240206100608.127702-1-vaishnav.a@ti.com>
 <20240206100608.127702-4-vaishnav.a@ti.com>
 <CZ386ITQ83KH.1KNOV5MXLXPBF@kernel.org>
From: Vaishnav Achath <vaishnav.a@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <CZ386ITQ83KH.1KNOV5MXLXPBF@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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.

Thanks and Regards,
Vaishnav

> -michael
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/81f90d13-da10-4a68-a0e7-95212f40b3e8@ti.com/