On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 3:02 PM Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The problem I have with the patch is that I don't know which precedence > it sets, because the commit message indicates that we have a new > firmware version, while Eric's report lacks this information. > > As long as everyone with access to the hardware agrees that breaking > backwards compatibility is the right thing to do, I'm not against it. > > But then again, if the support is under active development, why would > anyone run a stable@ kernel on this thing? Good point about the stable@ tag. This can go in the normal route then. Brian
