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

[Andrew Davis]

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 <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).
> 

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 <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
>