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

Sasha Levin
2024-04-11T07:57:17Z

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.

--
Thanks,
Sasha