[/me saw this by chance] On 19.09.23 18:00, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 05:40:18PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:09:54AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:28:24PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 09:06:54AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 08:15:04AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > > You also seem to have made up new stable kernel rules No, it was me who changed the text, as I saw people struggling with it and noticed that's partly due to problems in the text. But just like with code changes there's always a risk that slight changes to a text result in unwanted effects. Not yet sure if that's the case here. > as adding device > tree nodes clearly doesn't fit the description in > stable-kernel-rules.rst: > > It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a > device ID. > > (This used to say "New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.") The "device IDs" part is still there (you quoted it); and a quirk is a "real bug that bothers people", that's why it's mentioned a bit less prominently now and just as a example (to quote a bit more from the text: "It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID. To elaborate on the former: It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, a hardware quirk, [...]") Make me wonder: why do you think "device tree nodes" were covered before, but not anymore? What do you think should be changed to cover them again? Ciao, Thorsten