Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: correct uart mux for Radxa ZERO 3

[FUKAUMI Naoki]

Hi Ed,

On 9/19/25 00:23, Ed W wrote:
> On 18/09/2025 05:53, FUKAUMI Naoki wrote:
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your work.
> >
> > On 9/17/25 20:49, Ed Wildgoose wrote:
> > > The rk3566 has multiplexed pins and the uarts can be moved to a choice
> > > of 2 pin groups. The default rk356x-base.dtsi appears to default to mux0
> > > for all uarts, however, specific hardware might choose to implement
> > > alternatives
> > >
> > > The Radxa zero 3 shows that is uses M1 for uarts:
> > > - uart4
> > > - uart5
> > > - uart9
> > >
> > > These aren't normally enabled, but we should at least correct the
> > > default pinctrl definitions. Without these changes there will be
> > > conflicts with mmc0/mmc1, leading to the SD or eMMC going missing.
> >
> > Sorry, but why do we need these definitions for disabled nodes?
> >
> > Or why don't we do similar definitions for nodes other than uart?
> > For example, PWM12, I2S3, and SPI3 also use M1. Are they not related to SD/eMMC and therefore
> > don't need to be defined?
> >
> > If users want to use UARTs on pin headers, they will refer to the correct documentation[1] to
> > determine which pins are UARTs and will of course write the correct pinctrl definition.
> >
> > [1] https://docs.radxa.com/en/zero/zero3/hardware-design/hardware-interface#gpio-interface
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > --
> > FUKAUMI Naoki
> > Radxa Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
>
>
> Personally, and I'm saying this as a user who is technical enough to fix the definitions, it took me
> quite a few days to figure out what was wrong with the definitions and understand the intricate tree
> of dtsi includes, to finally figure out why I couldn't just do a "status = "okay";" to enable the
> UARTs... (which is roughly what is shown in several radxa supplied overlays to enable uarts on
> various boards)
>
> So my vote would be to correctly define all the hardware for a given board. Then users can simply do
> a status="okay" to enable and off they go. Phrased another way, I can't see a disadvantage in doing
> this, rather than leaving broken definitions in place which don't work correctly. Ideally I think
> you should add at least the I2C defs as well, as that is something I would like to use for another
> reason and haven't even got to the point of discovering that was broken?
>
> I might also (gently) add that it was not easy to find all the documentation to fix this. I located
> the datasheet for the Zero 3 via google (it's not obviously available on the wiki?), then there is
> the reading through and I must admit I missed the multiplex difference the first few reads through.
> Eventually I fed the docs into a LLM and it pointed out what I missed and we got there

In addition to docs.radxa.com, we also distribute some PDFs on the 
following pages:

 https://radxa.com/products/zeros/zero3e#downloads
 https://radxa.com/products/zeros/zero3w#downloads

All information should be linked from the product pages (e.g. 
https://radxa.com/products/zeros/zero3e), but if something is missing, 
please report the issue by clicking "Report issue" at the bottom of each 
page on docs.radxa.com.

Best regards,

--
FUKAUMI Naoki
Radxa Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

> So in summary, I'm hoping you will adjust the (really very well structured! thanks!) dtsi include
> tree to correctly define all hardware on each board so that we don't have a situation that every
> user in the world needs to be a really decent level kernel tech just to use the board! Pretty please!
>
> Thanks for listening
>
> Ed W