Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-67310-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
 boundary=d8fe15f87fbebbfb1a05ad0234592c7c1f29a5ff64a6a3d68c8a574e83bd;
 micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:29:42 +0100
Message-Id: <CZ5SMYXNTTOP.3MZ8P9N5BY4SH@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: ti: Add support for TI J722S
 Evaluation Module
Cc: <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <u-kumar1@ti.com>, <j-choudhary@ti.com>
From: "Michael Walle" <mwalle@kernel.org>
To: "Vignesh Raghavendra" <vigneshr@ti.com>, "Vaishnav Achath"
 <vaishnav.a@ti.com>, "Andrew Davis" <afd@ti.com>, <nm@ti.com>,
 <conor+dt@kernel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
 <kristo@kernel.org>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>
References: <20240206100608.127702-1-vaishnav.a@ti.com>
 <20240206100608.127702-4-vaishnav.a@ti.com>
 <CZ386ITQ83KH.1KNOV5MXLXPBF@kernel.org>
 <45bd5618-2e22-4715-9724-92f1d4b84608@ti.com>
 <40e15761-70b3-4343-a4b3-653bc4e6637e@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <40e15761-70b3-4343-a4b3-653bc4e6637e@ti.com>
Precedence: bulk

--d8fe15f87fbebbfb1a05ad0234592c7c1f29a5ff64a6a3d68c8a574e83bd
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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) +=3D 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.
> >>
> >=20
> > Both names are correct, for other Jacinto devices J721S2 and J784S4, th=
e
> > 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 packag=
e
> > populated on the EVM say XJ722SAMW, this can be seen in the schematics
> > also), please let know if this clarifies the confusion.
> >=20
>
> 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

--d8fe15f87fbebbfb1a05ad0234592c7c1f29a5ff64a6a3d68c8a574e83bd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iIgEABYIADAWIQQCnWSOYTtih6UXaxvNyh2jtWxG+wUCZc479hIcbXdhbGxlQGtl
cm5lbC5vcmcACgkQzcodo7VsRvtvBAD/Q6zUsGrsdv2dI2Lie45k5Qcf7kNAr1qK
LgqLuy/NP4ABAM+pdNE3IZ1Y5tNuoJ7txSvxjr4/Ns+fFKB88i39r+UL
=LpmB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--d8fe15f87fbebbfb1a05ad0234592c7c1f29a5ff64a6a3d68c8a574e83bd--