Re: [RFC] arm64: dts: ti: introduce a minimal am642 device tree

[Logan Bristol]

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