Fixing the devicetree of Rock 5 Model B (and possibly others)

[Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)]

On 23.03.24 18:02, Pratham Patel wrote:
> Since the introduction of the `of: property: fw_devlink: Fix stupid bug in remote-endpoint parsing` patch,

There is an earlier bug report asking for a revert of that patch:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZfvN5jDrftG-YRG4@titan/

> an issue 

Is your problem maybe similar to the one above?

Ciao, Thorsten

> with the device-tree of the Rock 5 Model B has been detected. All the stable kernels (6.7.y and 6.8.y) work on the Orange Pi 5, which has the Rockchip RK3588S SoC (same as the RK3588, but less I/O basically). So, being an owner of only two SBCs which use the RK3588* SoC, it appears that the Rock 5 Model B's DT is incorrect.
> 
> I looked at the patch and tried several things, neither resulted in anything that would point me to the core issue. Then I tried this:
> 
> ```
> $ grep -C 3 remote-endpoint arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-rock-5b.dts
> 
>                 port {
>                         es8316_p0_0: endpoint {
>                                 remote-endpoint = <&i2s0_8ch_p0_0>;
>                         };
>                 };
>         };
> --
>                 i2s0_8ch_p0_0: endpoint {
>                         dai-format = "i2s";
>                         mclk-fs = <256>;
>                         remote-endpoint = <&es8316_p0_0>;
>                 };
>         };
> };
> ```
> 
> So, from a cursory look, the issue seems to be related to either the DT node for the audio codec or related to the es8316's binding itself. Though I doubt that the later is the issue because if that were the issue, _someone_ with a Pine64 Pinebook Pro would've raised alarms. So far, this seems to be related to the `rk3588-rock-5b.dts` and possibly with the `rk3588s-rock-5a.dts` too.
> 
> I would **love** to help but I'm afraid I device-trees are not something that I am at-all familiar with. That said, I am open to methods of debugging this issue to provide a fix myself.
> 
> I would have replied to the patch's link but unfortunately, I haven't yet setup neomutt and my email provider's web UI doesn't have a [straightforward] way to reply using the 'In-Reply-To' header, hence a new thread. Apologies for the inconvenience caused.
> 
>   -- Pratham Patel