[PATCH v2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rfkill node for M.2 E wifi on orangepi-5-plus

[Alexey Charkov]

On Wednesday, August 7, 2024 9:32:51 PM GMT+3 Dragan Simic wrote:
> On 2024-08-07 20:14, Florian Klink wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 07:24:27PM GMT, Dragan Simic wrote:
> >> On 2024-08-07 19:00, Florian Klink wrote:
> >>> This follows the same logic as 82d40b141a4c ("arm64: dts: rockchip:
> >>> add
> >>> rfkill node for M.2 Key E WiFi on rock-5b").
> >>> 
> >>> On the orangepi-5-plus, there's also a GPIO pin connecting the WiFi
> >>> enable signal inside the M.2 Key E slot.
> >>> 
> >>> The exact GPIO PIN can be validated in the Armbian rk-5.10-rkr4
> >>> kernel
> >>> rk3588-orangepi-5-plus.dtsi file [1], which contains a `wifi_disable`
> >>> node referencing RK_PC4 on &gpio0.
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Florian Klink <flokli at flokli.de>
> >>> Tested-by: Florian Klink <flokli at flokli.de>
> >> 
> >> I forgot to mention that providing a Tested-by tag is redundant when
> >> there's already a Signed-off-by tag, because the latter already
> >> implies
> >> the former.
> > 
> > This came after I sent the v3. Generally I wish people would test
> > things
> > - though too often it's not. I explicitly tested this to work (with a
> > wifi module added to that slot being unblock-able afterwards), and
> > wanted to point that out, thus adding the Tested-by.
> 
> In general, some time should be allowed between sending consecutive
> versions of the same patch, so people can provide their feedback.
> 
> When it comes to testing the submitted patches, please note that signing
> off a patch implies that the signer has already, to the best of their
> abilities, made sure that the patch works as described and expected.
> 
> With all that in mind, please allow me to repeat that a Tested-by tag
> should not be provided from the same person that the Signed-off-by tag
> is already coming from.  It's simply redundant.

Just two cents: perhaps dropping the tag and expanding the commit message a 
bit could be the best of both worlds. Just state that you tested it with such 
and such module, observing such and such results. That would also help if for 
example another user tries a different module and that fails due to some 
quirks: it's easier to debug a potential issue when one knows a working 
configuration to compare a non-working one against.

Best regards,
Alexey