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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <krvprzy3iz5b7n37eo2mb6sol6pcjkxsjdbdi6sxeebwveqtnr@e52cvrlkdjsa>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:14:24 +0300
From: Florian Klink <flokli@...kli.de>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>, 
	Kever Yang <kever.yang@...k-chips.com>, Muhammed Efe Cetin <efectn@...tonmail.com>, 
	FUKAUMI Naoki <naoki@...xa.com>, Tamás Szűcs <tszucs@...tonmail.ch>, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rfkill node for M.2 E wifi
 on orangepi-5-plus

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@...kli.de>
>>Tested-by: Florian Klink <flokli@...kli.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.

DCO 1.1 doesn't say anything about Tested-by, it's mostly legalese about
being allowed to send out the patch, and understanding the consequences
regarding licensing. It doesn't require the person adding their
Signed-Off-By to have tested it.

Florian