On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:16:17AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:45 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, at 15:04, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From 8f7f115596d3dccedc06f5813e0269734f5cc534 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:30:38 +0200
> > > Subject: Revert "drm: Make drivers depends on DRM_DW_HDMI"
> > >
> > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > commit 8f7f115596d3dccedc06f5813e0269734f5cc534 upstream.
> > >
> > > This reverts commit c0e0f139354c01e0213204e4a96e7076e5a3e396, as helper
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the original commit never made it into
> > stable/linux-6.9.y, so maybe remove c0e0f139354c ("drm: Make
> > drivers depends on DRM_DW_HDMI") instead of reverting it?
>
> TBH, I do not understand why this commit was backported: it was reverted
> in the same pull request that introduced the bad commit, and thus both
> the bad commit and the revert ended up upstream together.
> Looks like a good opportunity to improve the backporting scripts...
This was done on purpose, otherwise we would be going "oh look, we
missed that one!" and adding the broken commit again and then noticing
that we forgot the revert. Doing both makes accounting for things like
this much simpler by both us, and other people who would report the
original commit as being missed as well.
Yes, it's churn, but it seems to work better so we have been doing it
this way for a few years now.
thanks,
greg k-h
