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:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 03:05:25PM +0100, Nora Schiffer wrote:

quoted

The J722S CPSW3G is mostly identical to the AM64's, but additionally
supports SGMII.

Signed-off-by: Nora Schiffer <redacted>
---
 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.