Re: [PATCH] dell-laptop: Adds support for keyboard backlight timeout AC settings

Greg Kroah-Hartman
2017-04-28T07:48:26Z

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 03:40:49PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:50:57PM -0400, Arcadiy Ivanov wrote:
> > On 2017-04-25 09:49, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Pali Rohár [mailto:pali.rohar@gmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 8:41 AM
> > > > To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>; Darren Hart
> > > > <dvhart@infradead.org>; Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>; Arcadiy Ivanov
> > > > <arcadiy@ivanov.biz>; Limonciello, Mario <Mario_Limonciello@Dell.com>;
> > > > Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>; linux-
> > > > kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] dell-laptop: Adds support for keyboard backlight timeout AC
> > > > settings
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday 25 April 2017 16:32:36 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday 25 April 2017 15:36:56 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > This patch misses few others that were applied to our testing / for-next.
> > > > > > Ah... sorry for that :-( And I was in impression that there were fixes
> > > > > > for that code which use mutexes... Now I know why I have not seen them!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have applied it to testing with corrected conflict (easy to fix),
> > > > > > > though check if everything still as supposed to be.
> > > > > > Can you send a link to your fix?
> > > > > Sure, here it is:
> > > > > http://git.infradead.org/linux-platform-drivers-
> > > > x86.git/commit/bcf7d8a30e2888f78a19778a16d3dd8c10b4b0ad
> > > >
> > > > It is OK.
> > > >
> > > Pali,
> > >
> > > Considering this is negatively affecting folks on stable kernel releases too
> > > when using this newer HW, would you consider to send to @stable too?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > I second that. Thanks!
> >
>
> In order for this to go back to stable, we will need to include the list of
> dependencies per stable-kernel-rules.txt. This can be done after it is merged,
> but if you can provide the set of Cc: stable lines needed, we can look at
> getting this into testing now so no further action will be required.
>
> ...
>
> Upon closer inspection, this does fail the 100 lines including context stable
> rule by an additional 55 lines. This is a process issue I've been thinking about
> for a while and trying to find the best way to express this problem and what a
> viable solution might look like. As it stands, fixes such as these are
> effectively limited to current and future kernel versions. I do think there is a
> need for vendors to be able to update their drivers upstream to work with current
> hardware without requiring a bleeding edge kernel. Perhaps "leaf node drivers"
> should have a looser set of stable rules, but that is not currently the way the
> upstream stable kernel rules work (at least as far as I understand them).
>
> +Greg KH who has the ultimate say on this. Greg, have I misrepresented anything
> here?

Nope, I usually defer to the maintainer of the subsystem to see if the
patch should be a valid stable patch or not. So if you think it should
be applied, and it's a "bit" larger than normal, that's fine, no
objection from me.

thanks,

greg k-h