On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 11:09:54AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 03:28:24PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 09:06:54AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 08:15:04AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote: > >> >Call it what you will, but please drop it. Otherwise by that logic you'd > >> >need to backport all devicetree patches (as well as most driver changes) > >> >since they ultimately aim at enabling hardware. > >> > >> Not all, only ones that re-use existing kernel driver but enable it for > >> new hardware (i.e. adding a new pci-id/usb-id/dts entries). > > > >Again, that's basically all our device-tree patches. And that can break > >in all sorts of ways. So again, please drop. This does not belong in > >stable. > > This is part of the criteria we use to select patches, yes? If you have > an objection around this particular patch then please let me know, or if > you have an objection around hardware enablement patches in stable then > we can have a bigger discussion around that one. > > However, just dropping this one for no particular reasonisn't the right > approach: we've been using this selection criteria for quite a few years > now. This patch makes zero sense to backport. It's a place holder for a camera led that we may one day need. No one marked it for stable, no one wants it in stable, no one needs it in stable, yet you repeatedly refuse to drop it and keep wasting my time. Backports, and especially your autosel ones, always come with a risk. And here there is ZERO upsides to that. Next time the feature you try to retroactively enable may not be as trivial and could cause real regressions. We're on our knees dealing with development and review of stuff that people do want and need. And you keep pushing silly things like and spamming us with backports that no one asked for. I'm just baffled. Johan
