On 12/2/25 1:24 AM, Anshul Dalal wrote:
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).
Why do both need a phandle? Seems like a big limitation if we can only
use a built up file/component node one time in only one other component.
Andrew
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
