Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] arm64: dts: rockchip: describe PCIe RTL8125 Ethernet on NanoPC-T6

["Diederik de Haas" <diederik@cknow-tech.com>]

On Fri Sep 11, 2026 at 2:19 PM CEST, Ricardo Pardini wrote:
> On 11/09/2026 11:52, Diederik de Haas wrote:
>> On Thu Sep 10, 2026 at 10:07 PM CEST, Ricardo Pardini via B4 Relay wrote:
>>> From: Ricardo Pardini <ricardo@pardini.net>
>>>
>>> The FriendlyElec NanoPC-T6 carries two on-board Realtek RTL8125 NICs
>>> behind pcie2x1l0 and pcie2x1l2.

Forgot to mention: thanks for this series :-)

>>> Describe the fixed function nodes and attach ethernet0/ethernet1
>>> aliases, so that U-Boot's fdt_fixup_ethernet() can fill in the MAC
>>> from its ethaddr/eth1addr env. The on-NIC EEPROMs on this board are
>>> not pre-programmed with a unique MAC, so this gives a stable MAC
>>> across boots that both U-Boot and the kernel agree on.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Pardini <ricardo@pardini.net>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-nanopc-t6.dtsi | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-nanopc-t6.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-nanopc-t6.dtsi
>>> index cfdb5c13f8606..550358a756618 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-nanopc-t6.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-nanopc-t6.dtsi
>>> @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ / {
>>>   	compatible = "friendlyarm,nanopc-t6", "rockchip,rk3588";
>>>   
>>>   	aliases {
>>> +		ethernet0 = &rtl_eth0;
>>> +		ethernet1 = &rtl_eth1;
>>>   		mmc0 = &sdhci;
>>>   		mmc1 = &sdmmc;
>>>   	};
>>> @@ -644,6 +646,20 @@ &pcie2x1l0 {
>>>   	pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>   	pinctrl-0 = <&pcie2_0_rst>;
>> 
>> The new pinctrl reference is ``pcie_25glan_perstb_b_pin``, so this patch needs
>> to be rebased.
>
> Indeed; I sent v5 vs v7.3-rc2 which doesn't have your recent series 
> fixing those. I've rebased onto next-20260910 which does, will send in a 
> v6 - but it's really just fuzz/context changes.
>
> I'll wait a bit until Heiner/Krysztof/Heiko chime in ref the binding and 
> its wording as that has been contentious in the previous versions. And 
> who knows what Sashiko will find this time.

Agreed, their feedback is more important.

>>>   	status = "okay";
>>> +
>>> +	pcie@0,0 {
>>> +		reg = <0x200000 0 0 0 0>;
>>> +		#address-cells = <3>;
>>> +		#size-cells = <2>;
>>> +		ranges;
>>> +		device_type = "pci";
>>> +		bus-range = <0x21 0x2f>;
>>> +
>>> +		rtl_eth0: ethernet@0,0 {
>>> +			compatible = "pci10ec,8125";
>>> +			reg = <0x210000 0 0 0 0>;
>>> +		};
>> 
>> Described on page 23 of the schematic titled '2.5G Ethernet B' and ``U12``
>> (ie RTL8125BG) is connected to LAN2 which has ``ETH2`` as label on the case.
>
> Confirmed.
>
>> 
>>> +	};
>>>   };
>>>   
>>>   &pcie2x1l1 {
>>> @@ -660,6 +676,20 @@ &pcie2x1l2 {
>>>   	pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>   	pinctrl-0 = <&pcie2_2_rst>;
>> 
>> The new pinctrl reference is ``pcie_25glan_perstb_pin``.
>
> Will also be fixed by rebasing onto linux-next.
>
>> 
>>>   	status = "okay";
>>> +
>>> +	pcie@0,0 {
>>> +		reg = <0x400000 0 0 0 0>;
>>> +		#address-cells = <3>;
>>> +		#size-cells = <2>;
>>> +		ranges;
>>> +		device_type = "pci";
>>> +		bus-range = <0x41 0x4f>;
>>> +
>>> +		rtl_eth1: ethernet@0,0 {
>>> +			compatible = "pci10ec,8125";
>>> +			reg = <0x410000 0 0 0 0>;
>>> +		};
>> 
>> Described on page 22 of the schematic titled '2.5G Ethernet A' and ``U10``
>> (ie RTL8125BG) is connected to LAN1 which has ``ETH1`` as label on the case.
>> 
>> So this results in:
>> ETH1 -> rtl_eth1
>> ETH2 -> rtl_eth0
>> 
>> This sounds like a recipe for confusion and/or potential future mistakes.
>> I think using ``rtl_eth1`` and ``rtl_eth2`` would be less confusing, but
>> I'm fine with another construct which achieves a similar thing.
>
> Yeah, that will result in aliases `ethernet0 = &rtl_eth1;` and 
> `ethernet1 = &rtl_eth2;`. It could also be `rtl_lan1`/`rtl_lan2`, or as 
> the schematics seems to to use the `_b` suffix, just `rtl_lan` and 
> `rtl_lan_b`, I don't mind. Raise if you do, otherwise I'll send v6 as 
> you suggested.

I'm not a fan of the `_b` suffix (also not in the schematic; without an
`_a` suffix). Do the aliases have to be 0-based? If not, then `ethernet1`
and `ethernet2` would be my preferred solution. If it needs to be 0-based
then the off-by-one 'confusion' seems like the best solution.

> Userspace will be off-by-one vs the printed case labels, thus _some_ 
> confusion will remain, but it's already better than the current 
> enP2p33s0/enP4p65s0.

Indeed :-)
I triple checked whether my findings were correct before responding.

Thanks to your series, I had a look at NanoPi R5S and found a few issues.
There it's even worse:
PCB/schematic: LAN1=GbE and 'WAN' on the case; LAN2=2.5GbE and LAN1 on the
case; LAN3=2.5GbE and LAN2 on the case. 
And those result in `end0`, `enp1s0` and `enP1p17s0` respectively :-P

Cheers,
  Diederik