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

[Florian Klink]

On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 11:30:40PM GMT, Dragan Simic wrote:
>Hello Alexey,
>
>On 2024-08-07 23:12, Alexey Charkov wrote:
>>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.
>
>Totally agreed.  Providing as much detail of the performed testing
>as possible in the patch description is always a good thing.

Just sent out a v4 including more information about my testing, and
dropping the explicit Tested-By tag.

Thanks,
Florian