Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add initial support for Pine64 PinePhone Pro

[Tom Fitzhenry]

On 6/8/22 12:10, Caleb Connolly wrote:
> I was surprised to see this series, and this patch especially.
> An almost ready to submit version of this patch with considerably more 
> functionality has been sat around for a while but unfortunately never 
> sent [1].

Firstly, thank you for your review!

I'm not sure why that other patch series has never been submitted. It 
was prepared 3 months ago (unbeknownst to me, at the time of v1), but 
since then has not been submitted.

I would feel uncomfortable submitting that patch series, since I am not 
familiar with parts of the full DT. In time I intend to be, but for now 
I think we'd benefit from having a base DT mainlined, on top of which we 
can iterate and parallelise.

> According to the link below (and my own knowledge of PPP development) 
> Kamil is the original author of this patch, both Kamil and Martijn 
> created the initial version of the devicetree. Given that you're using 
> their work as a base, Kamil's authorship should be respected in the 
> patch you submit.

I agree authorship is important, and thus Kamil, Martijn and Megi are 
listed as Co-developed-by in this patch.

> Their original patch [2] contained SoBs from them and Martijn, those are 
> both missing below. Both of their signed-off-by tags should be added 
> before this patch hits the mailing list, and the same for Ondrej. The 
> order also seems wrong (Ondrej should be last before you).

Yes, this patch's acceptance is blocked until all Co-developed-by 
authors (Kamil, Martjin, Megi) provide their Signed-off-by to this patch.

> Support for the volume keys, accelerometer, magnetometer, GPIO LEDs, 
> touchscreen, modem codec and audio support are all missing here, but 
> they're included in the patches you referenced. In their current state 
> (see Martijn's commit [1] or my 5.19 rebase [3]) the DT for these 
> components has been worked on by several people, tested by the larger 
> user community, and are already supported in mainline. It seems strange 
> not to include them and just leads to a bunch of extra busywork to add 
> them back later. It's easy enough to drop any of these nodes during 
> review if they become an issue.

To keep this patch series light and easy-to-review, I'd be keen to keep 
it as small as possible for now. This DT is >18 months old out-of-tree 
(across multiple repos), so I think this minimal DT being mainlined is 
an improvement over the status quo.

The existing work that the community has done will still be useful, 
albeit in future patch series. This DT just allows that future work to 
be done iteratively, and in parallel.

> With that being said, I've left some feedback below, with it addressed 
> and the authorship/SoB situation sorted out:
>
> Reviewed-by: Caleb Connolly <kc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate your review! I will ensure v3 
addresses those.