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 <flokli@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Tested-by: Florian Klink <flokli@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> 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.
