> -----Original Message----- > From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 4:07 PM > To: Limonciello, Mario > Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx; > alex.hung@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; platform-driver- > x86@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: intel-hid: Add support for Device Specific > Methods > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:38:16AM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Srinivas Pandruvada [mailto:srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2018 8:44 AM > > > To: Darren Hart; Andy Shevchenko > > > Cc: Limonciello, Mario; Alex Hung; Andy Shevchenko; Platform Driver; Linux > Kernel > > > Mailing List; Rafael J. Wysocki > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: intel-hid: Add support for Device Specific > > > Methods > > > > > > On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 16:59 -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 05:06:14PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 4:51 PM, <Mario.Limonciello@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > wrote: > ... > > > Mario can add more. > > > But I think Dell has released a BIOS fix, so that power button can > > > still work using non _DSM way. So I think we can wait for normal > > > release cycle. > > > > Yeah, I added some comments on a separate reply already indicating this. > > > > The affected system we know about has reverted the new interface. > > > > This all stems from an expectation that the _DSM has been there for "many" > > releases on the Windows side. Long enough that even all the corporate > downgrade > > scenarios to older Windows versions and the drivers with them all worked > properly. > > > > If this doesn't end up being a candidate for backporting to stable we'll probably > > end up asking our various OS partners to backport it as a SAUCE type patch in > distro > > kernels to eventually be able to turn this back on. > > Thanks Mario. We'll skip the RC. We can discuss -stable as a separate > issue. This patch fixes a demonstrable bug, the biggest obstacle here > is the size. At 240 lines with context, it more than doubles the maximum > patch size for stable. > > My recommendation is that we treat the stable backport of this as a > special case, e.g. Andy and I don't tag it, but you or Srinivas propose > it and specifically make the case for why an exception should be made to > Greg. > > How self contained and isolated this change is will be an important part > of the argument. On the one hand, it's all one file, on the other hand, > this is a fairly generic driver in use in more and more platforms, with > the potential for widespread impact if this introduces a new bug. > In that case, how about we let it bake for a while and maybe by the time 4.19 comes out is when we do the proposal of a stable backport?
