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: <5360173.ktpJ11cQ8Q@diego>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 17:11:26 +0200
From: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
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>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
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

Am Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2025, 16:18:17 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> 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.

I guess this might have more to do with how deep people submitting DTs
dive into the schematics.

The "aim" has always been to just use the schematics/TRM names, which is
true for the core soc pinctrl entries, and many if not most boards do this.

I would assume the "lan1-led-pin" below the newly added one stems from
a more "shallow dive" ;-) . I would assume that "lan1-led-pin" most
likely has a different name in the schematics, and using that would've
been better.