On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 08:24:49PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 10/04/2024 20:02, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 07:58:40PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 4/10/24 17:57, Sasha Levin wrote: > >>> This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled > >>> > >>> arm64: dts: qcom: Add support for Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S > >> > >> autosel has been reeaaaaaly going over the top lately, particularly > >> with dts patches.. I'm not sure adding support for a device is > >> something that should go to stable > > > > Simple device ids and quirks have always been stable material. > > > > That's true, but maybe DTS should have an exception. I guess you think > this is trivial device ID, because the patch contents is small. But it > is or it can be misleading. The patch adds new small DTS file which > includes another file: > > #include "sm7125-xiaomi-common.dtsi" > > Which includes another 7 files: > > #include <dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h> > #include <dt-bindings/firmware/qcom,scm.h> > #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h> > #include <dt-bindings/regulator/qcom,rpmh-regulator.h> > #include "sm7125.dtsi" > #include "pm6150.dtsi" > #include "pm6150l.dtsi" > > Out of which last three are likely to be changing as well. > > This means that following workflow is reasonable and likely: > 1. Add sm7125.dtsi (or pm6150.dtsi or pm6150l.dtsi) > 2. Add some sm7125 board (out of scope here). > 3. Release new kernel, e.g. v6.7. > 4. Make more changes to sm7125.dtsi > 5. The patch discussed here, so one adding sm7125-xiaomi-curtana.dts. > > Now if you backport only (5) above, without (4), it won't work. Might > compile, might not. Even if it compiles, might not work. > > The step (4) here might be small, but might be big as well. Fair enough. So should we drop this change? thanks, greg k-h
