On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:23:20AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 03:57:16AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:34:39AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:27:28AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > I vote for dropping. Also, I think such DTS patches should not be picked > > > > automatically via AUTOSEL. Manual backports or targetted Cc-stable, > > > > assuming that backporter investigated it, seem ok. > > > Sasha, want to add dts changes to the AUTOSEL "deny-list"? > > > > Sure, this makes sense. > > Does it? Seems like a rather big hammer to me. I totally understand > blocking the addition of new dts files to stable, but there's a whole > load of different people maintaining dts files with differing levels of > remembering to cc stable explicitly. > > That said, often a dts backport depends on a driver (or binding) change > too, so backporting one without the other may have no effect. I have no > idea whether or not AUTOSEL is capable of picking out those sort of > dependencies. In the best case backporting a dts change as no effect, but it can also break the driver completely unless the corresponding driver changes are also backported. And such breaking dts changes are currently being pulled in as dependencies: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZgEpI31-OJkNchPF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I'm all for not backporting any dts changes that lack an explicit CC stable tag. (And people will never learn to add the CC stable tag when everything with just a Fixes tag is being pulled in anyway.) Johan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
