On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 1:59 AM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
<nfraprado@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 04:19:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:07:34AM -0400, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> > > I noticed that there are some commits from drm-misc-next [1] that haven't been
> > > added to the for-linux-next [2] branch, and consequently haven't made their way
> > > into linux-next.
> > >
> > > Namely, commit bf0390e2c95b ("drm/panel: add samsung s6e3fa7 panel driver") and
> > > commit 2689b33b8864 ("dt-bindings: display: panel-simple-dsi: add s6e3fa7
> > > ams559nk06 compat") which have been applied almost a month ago [3].
> > >
> > > I noticed because running 'make dtbs_check' on today's next is showing new
> > > warnings, but with these commits applied there shouldn't be any warning.
> > >
> > > Could you please take a look? I'm guessing a merge was forgotten somewhere along
> > > the line on the for-linux-next branch.
> >
> > Those commits are in drm-misc-next which is now targetting the 6.10
> > merge window. In order not to disrupt the oncoming 6.9 release though,
> > drm-misc-next is removed from the for-next branch, it will be
> > reintroduced after 6.9-rc1.
> >
> > Maxime
>
> I see. I didn't realize that's how drm-misc-next worked.
>
> Interestingly enough, the reason why this happened is because the for-next
> branch on the qcom tree [1] also includes changes that are queued for 6.10. So
> it seems that every subsystem has a different view of whether linux-next should
> include only changes for the next (or current) merge window (6.9 in this case),
> or if it should also include changes for the following merge window (6.10 in
> this case). The end result is that in the time period leading to, and during,
> the merge window, linux-next might be in an inconsistent state - it's neither a
> snapshot for this release's rc1, nor a snapshot for the rc1 of the following
> release. This seems to me to partially defeat the purpose of linux-next, so I
> wonder if it's just a matter of better documenting the expectations for
> linux-next.
AFAIK 6.10 material should not be included in -next until after the merge
window has closed. If they are including it then they are doing it wrong.
ChenYu
> Anyway, at least for now I'll keep in mind that linux-next can be inconsistent
> when looking through future results.
>
> Thank you both for the insight.
>
> Thanks,
> Nícolas
>
> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/qcom/linux.git/log/?h=for-next
