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

[Heiko Stuebner]

Hi Cristan,

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" :-) ).


Heiko