From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 277F0C3DA7F for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:31:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: MIME-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=clM14XZnCkKlnQEqf0XCli4TSu2XTFrkaDKcxnbToic=; b=07975z5QPhEytZnc5V6nq1vgZk SNs/UfjQoIK8P9Rb9wz2gqYUBahRP6rRsZQSUxGtLgmSZZar1uaMv3iPH4C4fsUm0wCVuD6hwPFEn 4RU1gGS10UJOuvHJxm1xk6Yec912kSO3Q4TgDdZ4HdUDqqhRlKQBOxouK5XUly8p+R+65r37rH87s i0tADOX004XUm2olsFziZuQGQCs29+bXiXE0uKIwEjARs79sbaGzu4EOJ3FBcPRzSt6n4/rhdJ1NT NhaK3ti5GMRw9g+TFWCn8M/289YVzWM8GkDQtPhlqitzUdZXG15rjARBewK+4LaX7lGpp2GPU3rB1 Ku2ici9A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sboFd-00000006LCX-0VnX; Wed, 07 Aug 2024 21:31:21 +0000 Received: from mail.manjaro.org ([2a01:4f8:c0c:51f3::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.97.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1sboF2-00000006L2v-0joW; Wed, 07 Aug 2024 21:30:47 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1723066241; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=clM14XZnCkKlnQEqf0XCli4TSu2XTFrkaDKcxnbToic=; b=TWJcjB4HIYS5OdulQ4drZ+lzlqOnbRJxLXKcRvgYDUfl7Oo4+SVaOAJ37y12rQv1PuizBj xkVpaoIubMZwlyVLqKiinxU7wgmaDbmwmqWNQCKNsBd+iJm65nie5Pl98C3a4Xcj3RBpvn flURP7yCQdIyAC9VwCtr4pOfA898ShYn6uvnNSU05UY+S5UaQtHiAwwgJGIihKHP1ANd83 //vRPj1oPu81lYeZPTCtpcW60rPd5E5PT4Nlbr2vsbjIHZufHoIKzU+JajeiOGc5l50PWz GORbm6cCJY1dcp64sHX5tny8bY8W4GCHkYGtL2T8hG1CsJg+P08dURHXVxAiMg== Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 23:30:40 +0200 From: Dragan Simic To: Alexey Charkov Cc: Florian Klink , linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Heiko Stuebner , Sebastian Reichel , Kever Yang , Muhammed Efe Cetin , FUKAUMI Naoki , =?UTF-8?Q?Tam=C3=A1s_Sz=C5=B1cs?= , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rfkill node for M.2 E wifi on orangepi-5-plus In-Reply-To: <4888470.OV4Wx5bFTl@latitude-fedora> References: <20240807162001.1737829-1-flokli@flokli.de> <1b2e1b1b321f84f5cbff2ae18c3eba2e@manjaro.org> <4888470.OV4Wx5bFTl@latitude-fedora> Message-ID: X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20240807_143044_675938_41709B6E X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 24.45 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hello Alexey, On 2024-08-07 23:12, Alexey Charkov wrote: > On Wednesday, August 7, 2024 9:32:51 PM GMT+3 Dragan Simic wrote: >> On 2024-08-07 20:14, Florian Klink wrote: >> > 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 >> >>> Tested-by: Florian Klink >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> In general, some time should be allowed between sending consecutive >> versions of the same patch, so people can provide their feedback. >> >> When it comes to testing the submitted patches, please note that >> signing >> off a patch implies that the signer has already, to the best of their >> abilities, made sure that the patch works as described and expected. >> >> With all that in mind, please allow me to repeat that a Tested-by tag >> should not be provided from the same person that the Signed-off-by tag >> is already coming from. It's simply redundant. > > Just two cents: perhaps dropping the tag and expanding the commit > message a > bit could be the best of both worlds. Just state that you tested it > with such > and such module, observing such and such results. That would also help > if for > example another user tries a different module and that fails due to > some > quirks: it's easier to debug a potential issue when one knows a working > configuration to compare a non-working one against. Totally agreed. Providing as much detail of the performed testing as possible in the patch description is always a good thing.