[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH] treewide: dts: Unify naming of gpio-keys nodes

Christian Lamparter chunkeey at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 12:27:40 EST 2019

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 6:07:40 PM CET Petr Štetiar wrote:
> Christian Lamparter <chunkeey at gmail.com> [2018-12-31 17:41:34]:
> > I hope you know what you are up against because unless you also do the changes
> > upstream this will happen again and again. :\ / :)
> My plan is to first wait for comments here, see if it gets merged eventualy
> and then start poking upstream. I still didn't received any feedback yet(good
> sign?) on my last `treewide: dts: Remove default-state=off property...`[1]
> upstream attempt so I don't know if it's worth the effort.
Hm, interesting. I usually get replies within a few days. Granted, I have never
sent anything that big in a single mail to multiple mailinglists and 
maintainers. I would try to split up the patch into multiple patches so that
each maintainer has the chance to act on just his own turf. 
Keep in mind that linux-kernel is heavily compartmentalized. The device-tree
maintainers mainly just ack/review patches for the subsystem maintainers.
This is done in order to prevent the conflicts between the various trees when
they get staged into -next and ultimately wander into the kernel during the
"merge window". 

I guess if you still want to follow through you could start to update the
binding documents. But, I do understand that you don't want to waste 
anymore time with it.

> Anyway, I guess, that in most of the cases, people are just copy&pasting from
> the DTS files from the OpenWrt repository and some of them even wonder[2] why
> they need to use generic `leds` node names if it's not the case in the rest of
> the DTS files in OpenWrt tree:
>  @mkresin: would you please rename the node to the generic "leds".
>  @arapov: @mkresin, by the way, the rest of *.dts in ramips/ using gpio-leds.
>           Do you still think it is good to deviate from the rest here?
> 1. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10732465/
> 2. https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/1686#discussion_r244512451
True, I think you noticed that it's a surprisingly long and weird difficult
process to push these sort of changes upstream unless you are directly
involved there. However it's much easier to comment on the daily patches/PRs
and make sure that new boards/dts are up to spec with the latest craze and
also, you get the chance to interact with the commiters a bit.

> 3. https://openwrt.org/submitting-patches#dts_checklist
^^ I know that one only too well.
"The name of a node should reflect the function of the device and not its model. "
I c&p that from the device-tree spec and linked to it so devs know from where
these seemingly arbitrary rules come from. While looking at the checklist, I 
noticed that one of the "SPDX license tag" check is already automated in the
upstream scripts/checkpatch.pl... And now, I wish that the script could also
act on default-state = "off", the "gpio-keys-polled" and "gpio-leds" 
node names, etc.

Oh well.


openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list