On Wed Jul 9, 2025 at 1:05 PM CEST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/07/2025 12:57, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>> +	gpio-keys {
>> +		compatible = "gpio-keys";
>> +		pinctrl-0 = <&gpio4_a0_k1>;
>> +		pinctrl-names = "default";
>> +
>> +		button-reset {
>> +			debounce-interval = <50>;
>> +			gpios = <&gpio4 RK_PA0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>> +			label = "RESET";
>> +			linux,code = <KEY_RESTART>;
>> +		};
>> +	};
>> +
>>  	gpio-leds {
>>  		compatible = "gpio-leds";
>>  		pinctrl-names = "default";
>> @@ -127,6 +140,12 @@ eth_phy0_reset_pin: eth-phy0-reset-pin {
>>  		};
>>  	};
>>  
>> +	gpio-keys {
>> +		gpio4_a0_k1: gpio4-a0-k1 {
>
> Are you sure that this passes checks?

I did the following:

```sh
export PATH=~/dev/kernel.org/dt-schema-venv/bin/:$PATH CROSS_COMPILE=aarch64-linux-gnu- ARCH=arm64
make distclean
make debarm64_defconfig
make CHECK_DTBS=y W=1 rockchip/rk3568-nanopi-r5s.dtb
```

And it did not report any issues.
Then booted up my NanoPi R5S and verified that with the updated dtb the
reset button worked.

If it's about the 'weird' name/label, it is what is used in the
schematic document I have and I asked Heiko (on IRC) if using
``reset_button_pin: gpio4-a0-k1`` would not be better. That would make
it more descriptive while also having the schematic traceability in it.
The answer was no, use the form I used in this patch.

Am I missing checks I should've done as well?

Cheers,
  Diederik