On Mon Dec 1, 2025 at 11:52 PM IST, Andrew Davis wrote: > On 11/28/25 5:02 AM, Paresh Bhagat wrote: >> AM62d previously reused the AM62a DM. Since a dedicated DM is now >> available, migrate to device specific DM. >> >> Signed-off-by: Paresh Bhagat <[email protected]> >> --- >> Boot logs >> https://gist.github.com/paresh-bhagat12/38bce75c43466b5074271f4cb2ddc3f3 >> >> arch/arm/dts/k3-am62d-evm-binman.dtsi | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-am62d-evm-binman.dtsi >> b/arch/arm/dts/k3-am62d-evm-binman.dtsi >> index 7bf0e955645..3a0ab9f8b2b 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/dts/k3-am62d-evm-binman.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/k3-am62d-evm-binman.dtsi >> @@ -101,4 +101,12 @@ >> description = "k3-am62d2-evm"; >> }; >> >> +&dm_falcon { > > Not related to this patch, but just noticed we have a different DM node for > falcon vs regular, would these ever be different? Could we reuse the same > filename for both, was this a limitation of binman or an oversight? >
It's a binman limitation, as with a common node it would complain of duplicate phandles (once in tispl.bin and again in tifalcon.bin). > Anyway for this patch, LGTM, > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Davis <[email protected]> > >> + filename = "ti-dm/am62dxx/ipc_echo_testb_mcu1_0_release_strip.xer5f"; >> +}; >> + >> +&dm { >> + filename = "ti-dm/am62dxx/ipc_echo_testb_mcu1_0_release_strip.xer5f"; >> +}; >> + >> #endif
