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: <11937120.2WqB4rESCP@diego>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 21:49:11 +0200
From: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.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, 18:47:47 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Diederik de Haas:
> On Wed Jul 9, 2025 at 4:18 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > 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?
> >> 
> >> 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 agree I've done it inconsistent with how I did the other pinctrl
> nodes, so I should've added the '-pin' suffix. For consistency.

Also fine by me :-) .


> I've been wondering whether there are rules for naming [1], both for the
> grouping and the node names. Some DTS files use a '-pin' suffix, others
> don't. And it's not uncommon to see both variants in the same dts file.
> 
> One of the examples I looked at was ``rk3568-qnap-ts433.dts``. While it
> uses 'keys' as grouping node, I went with 'gpio-keys' as that was used
> more often (in other files). While the gmac0/keys/leds subnodes under
> ``&pinctrl`` use the '-pin' suffix, the pmic/usb subnodes do not.
> (and I just noticed 'hdd4_led-pin' should be 'hdd4-led-pin')

The TS433 suffers from that "no schematics" thing I mentioned in the
other mail, so the device-specific pins are named after their functon.
As I was assuming the TS433 will follow the reference design, those
pins are named after how other boards do it

But I think I'm just making sense of my subconscious choices
retrocactively right now and all the above sort of happened without
me thinking to much about that.


> I'd love to know/learn if there are actual rules for these things, but
> I don't know them.

From looking at pinctrl bindings, it seems patterns are set per controller
with no global rules. Which makes sense in a way, because they do
represent pin(-groups) differently each.