On 11/04/2024 12:23, Conor Dooley wrote: >>>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> 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 now dropped this, thanks. >>> >>> 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. Uh, yes, I understood as "trivial quirks and new device ID" AUTOSEL behavior. Not AUTOSEL for DTS patches in general. Best regards, Krzysztof
