Re: Patch "arm64: dts: qcom: Add support for Xiaomi Redmi Note 9S" has been added to the 6.8-stable tree

Greg KH
2024-04-11T07:34:46Z

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:27:28AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/04/2024 09:22, Greg KH wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 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"?

thanks,

greg k-h