Re: [PATCH 00/40] arm64: dts: rockchip: Wire up frl-enable-gpios for RK3576/RK3588 boards

Heiko Stuebner
2026-04-20T15:08:44Z

Hi Cristian,

Am Montag, 20. April 2026, 13:10:27 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Cristian Ciocaltea:
> On 4/18/26 2:18 AM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 17. April 2026, 19:55:17 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Cristian Ciocaltea:
> >> On 4/17/26 2:34 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> >>> Am Freitag, 17. April 2026, 11:24:34 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Cristian Ciocaltea:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> Cristian Ciocaltea (40):
> >>>> arm64: dts: rockchip: Add frl-enable-gpios to rk3576-100ask-dshanpi-a1
> >>>> arm64: dts: rockchip: Add frl-enable-gpios to rk3576-armsom-sige5
> >>>> arm64: dts: rockchip: Add frl-enable-gpios to rk3576-evb1-v10
> >>>> arm64: dts: rockchip: Add frl-enable-gpios to rk3576-evb2-v10
> >>>> arm64: dts: rockchip: Add frl-enable-gpios to rk3576-luckfox-core3576
> >>>> arm64: dts: rockchip: Add frl-enable-gpios to rk3576-nanopi-m5
> >>>> arm64: dts: rockchip: Add frl-enable-gpios to rk3576-nanopi-r76s
> >>>> arm64: dts: rockchip: Add frl-enable-gpios to rk3576-roc-pc
> >>>> arm64: dts: rockchip: Add frl-enable-gpios to rk3576-rock-4d
> >>>
> >>> I do think one patch per SoC (rk3576, rk3588, rk3588s) would make more
> >>> sense, because these patches really are mostly identical :-)
> >>
> >> Yeah, apologies for the large number of patches, I went this way to allow
> >> per-board reviews. As previously noted, I tried to identify the GPIO pins from
> >> multiple sources, so I'm not entirely sure about the accuracy in every case.
> >>
> >> Would it be preferable to squash the patches per SoC and board vendor, instead?
> >
> > I really would just do it per soc .. so 3 patches. That is a size that is
> > still reviewable for people, who can then check for their board.
> >
> > If the patch is labeled "Add frl-enable-gpios for all RK3588s boards", I
> > do expect people to notice it the same as "oh _my_ board gets changed".
> > ("all" could also be "most" :-) ).
>
> Ack.
>
> I would still keep the more invasive changes — such as those touching
> the regulator hacks — in separate patches, though.

sure, that sounds perfectly reasonable :-) .

Heiko