[PATCH] arm: dts: k3-am62d-evm-binman: Update DM

[Anshul Dalal]

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 <p-bhagat at ti.com>
>> ---
>> 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 <afd at ti.com>
>
>> +	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