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: <4124439.ReJHH8Nr61@diego>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 20:24:47 +0200
From: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>, Florian Klink <flokli@...kli.de>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 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

Am Mittwoch, 7. August 2024, 20:14:24 CEST schrieb Florian Klink:
> 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.

While the DCO may not say it, everyone else will simply require it though ;-) .

Aka no maintainer will apply a patch without the submitter having tested
their change. This is just implicitly expected.

Like if it comes to light later that the change was not tested before
submission that creates quite a trust-issue between submitter and
maintainer on future submissions.


Heiko