On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 09:55:24AM +0100, Nora Schiffer wrote:
> On Wed, 2026-03-18 at 17:35 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 03:05:25PM +0100, Nora Schiffer wrote:
> > > The J722S CPSW3G is mostly identical to the AM64's, but additionally
> > > supports SGMII.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nora Schiffer <nora.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml
> > > index a959c1d7e643a..9ab8237c7f79e 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,k3-am654-cpsw-nuss.yaml
> > > @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ properties:
> > >        - ti,j7200-cpswxg-nuss
> > >        - ti,j721e-cpsw-nuss
> > >        - ti,j721e-cpswxg-nuss
> > > +      - ti,j722s-cpsw-nuss
> > 
> > For all these bindings, why is a fallback not suitable? Seems like it'd
> > be possible here, since there's just a new feature. Is there some other
> > programming model difference?
> 
> I think a fallback makes sense, I didn't add one because other variants derived
> from the AM64 don't have one either. I can include a fallback in v2 (for all 3
> bindings in this series).

Unless someones got a good reason not to, I think you should do so.