Hi Tom
On 17/11/23 00:10, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 11:43:50AM +0530, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
Hi Tom,
Trying to bring back this series here.
On 03/10/23 20:40, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 07:57:04PM +0530, Kumar, Udit wrote:
On 10/3/2023 1:40 PM, Keerthy wrote:
Enable ESM initialization for J7200
Signed-off-by: Keerthy j-keerthy@ti.com
board/ti/j721e/evm.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/board/ti/j721e/evm.c b/board/ti/j721e/evm.c index 42fa94b7a5..070b28326f 100644 --- a/board/ti/j721e/evm.c +++ b/board/ti/j721e/evm.c @@ -543,7 +543,8 @@ void spl_board_init(void) } #ifdef CONFIG_ESM_K3
- if (board_ti_k3_is("J721EX-PM2-SOM")) {
- if ((board_ti_k3_is("J721EX-PM2-SOM")) ||
IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TARGET_J7200_R5_EVM)) {Could we align on one kind of check, For J721E check is done against board-id, whereas for J7200 checking
We should look at figuring out how to split this file in two. One for "generic J721E systems" and one for "TI EVMs", as I've mentioned in other threads, so that it's easier for custom platforms to drop code they don' require.
Yes that does make sense. Would it be okay if we solve that problem separately in a different patch series? We can move along with this current series for now (after making the required change in CONFIG/board-id for v2) since ESM support is important for these platforms.
Well, I think part of the answer to your question is (and this is a more general TI one too), what outstanding changes need to come in now to make existing platforms functional for v2024.01 ? My first thought is that this series would be taken to -next, if I took it now, which means there's time before it would be in master, and so if it really makes the re-org later easier, we could take it, but if not, can we re-org then do this? But if we need this to deal with regressions, OK, yes, we can take it like this now.
Maybe focusing on the re-org after having in the changes would help give more perspective on how we can split? Not sure just a thought... in that case I prefer taking this in and having a working error signaling module in rather than delaying it if that's okay.