On 2/8/23 12:45 PM, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
On 2/8/2023 12:28, Andrew Davis wrote:
On 2/8/23 11:08 AM, Sinthu Raja M via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 10:31 PM Bajjuri, Praneeth <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/8/2023 10:37 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
On 2/7/2023 9:13, Sinthu Raja wrote:
From: Sinthu Raja <[email protected]>
The AM68 SK has PWM output pins connected to its RPi headers. Add
overlay file to enable PWM pins.
Signed-off-by: Sinthu Raja <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
==============
Address review comment:
- Remove extra space
v1:https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/15730
conf/machine/j721s2-evm.conf | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/conf/machine/j721s2-evm.conf b/conf/machine/j721s2-evm.conf
index 7c120dcc..f1127ed5 100644
--- a/conf/machine/j721s2-evm.conf
+++ b/conf/machine/j721s2-evm.conf
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ KERNEL_DEVICETREE = " \
ti/k3-am68-sk-bb-csi2-ov5640.dtbo \
ti/k3-am68-sk-bb-rpi-cam-imx219.dtbo \
ti/k3-am68-sk-fpdlink-fusion.dtbo \
+ ti/k3-am68-sk-rpi-hdr-ehrpwm.dtbo \
ti/k3-am68-sk-som-ddr_mem_carveout.dtbo \
ti/k3-j721e-fpdlink-imx390-cm-0-0.dtbo \
ti/k3-j721e-fpdlink-imx390-cm-0-1.dtbo \
This file does not exists in the kernel (yet?). I'm assuming that you
all have put in the patch for it and we are just playing a waiting game?
If that is the case, then I would appreciate (in the future) not
submitting these patches to the meta-ti mailing list until the kernel
.dtb changes have been accepted into the kernel. This is the second
patch in recent weeks that I'm having to sit on until the kernel catches
up...
It makes it really hard to test these patches if the kernel part is not
there, and I do not have the bandwidth to keep checking daily if the
change has made it into the public/cicd branches.
Agreed here.
Sinthu, Please post the associated meta-ti change only once the kernel
dts change is merged to cicd build.
Agreed.
I'm going to slightly disagree, I don't see an issue with getting some
early reviews. Just as long as you only post it as an "RFC" and only
post the real "PATCH" when ready.
If the patch is doing more than just adding a dtb, or changing a SRCREV, or
anything that depends on an external repo to be updated then I would agree.
Posting the change under the RFC banner (and clearly stating that it will not
build yet), it a great thing.
Fair, but in this case, even this simple change had an issue
and needed a v2, what might be trivial to us might need review
for folks new to all this. :)
I'd also like to poke again the idea of pulling in DTB/DTBO files based
on some pattern matching instead of manually adding each time. I know the
idea got shot down, but I think this is going to be a growing problem as
we start to increase our usage of DT Overlays in the near future..
The one annoying with making all of the DTBs being patterns is that we have to
implement the logic to expand the wildcarding and set KERNEL_DEVICETREE. If
anyone tries to point to a different kernel (say an upstream version) then
nothing from meta-ti will work. And that may not be a show stopper issue, it's
just the one that popped up in my head when you first brought up the idea for
doing it for all platforms.
Maybe this would be a good feature to promote to bitbake to support? And
alternative to KERNEL_DEVICETREE? A different variable?
That is an option, no need to make it TI specific, I'd imagine wildcard
filtering would be useful for many other's bsp layers.
Andrew
Andrew
from what i see, the kernel patch is still under review.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#15759):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/15759
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/96808923/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
