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