linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add reset button to NanoPi R5S

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: <ea6f2815-5882-4fab-8372-1c252a87e09a@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 16:18:17 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add reset button to NanoPi R5S

On 09/07/2025 13:17, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>>>  		compatible = "gpio-leds";
>>>  		pinctrl-names = "default";
>>> @@ -127,6 +140,12 @@ eth_phy0_reset_pin: eth-phy0-reset-pin {
>>>  		};
>>>  	};
>>>  
>>> +	gpio-keys {
>>> +		gpio4_a0_k1: gpio4-a0-k1 {
>>
>> Are you sure that this passes checks?
> 
> I did the following:
> 
> ```sh
> export PATH=~/dev/kernel.org/dt-schema-venv/bin/:$PATH CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- ARCH=arm64
> make distclean
> make debarm64_defconfig
> make CHECK_DTBS=y W=1 rockchip/rk3568-nanopi-r5s.dtb

This looks fine.

> ```
> 
> And it did not report any issues.
> Then booted up my NanoPi R5S and verified that with the updated dtb the
> reset button worked.
> 
> If it's about the 'weird' name/label, it is what is used in the
> schematic document I have and I asked Heiko (on IRC) if using
> ``reset_button_pin: gpio4-a0-k1`` would not be better. That would make
> it more descriptive while also having the schematic traceability in it.
> The answer was no, use the form I used in this patch.
> 
> Am I missing checks I should've done as well?
I meant that usually nodes, including pin controller mux/config nodes,
have specific prefixes or suffixes. Other cases have here as well. Your
does not.

Best regards,
Krzysztof