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

Conor Dooley
2024-04-11T10:24:30Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3307 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 03:57:16AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:34:39AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > 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"?
>
> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]