Hi Vinod,
Thanks for taking a look at this patch set!
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:16:49PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/02270f62-9334-400c-b7b9-7e6a44dbbfc9@solid-run.... Cc: Rob Herring robh@kernel.org Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski krzk+dt@kernel.org Cc: Conor Dooley conor+dt@kernel.org Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
You can keep cc lines after s-o-b line after the '---' separator, that way it will be skipped when applying while email client will cc folks.
Yes, but keeping the CC list even when the patch is applied was the intention, especially for stable.
My main question was cc stable, for a binding additions, that might not be helpful as dts may not have these updates, so why port bindings?
There is a faction of people, whose point as a matter of fact I do understand, is that if you make an update to the device tree, you shouldn't be required to also update the kernel for things to continue to work as before.
The purpose of backporting the binding addition to stable is exactly in order for kernels such as linux-6.12.y to start supporting modified device trees, such that one day we could roll out such modifications. The series doesn't depend on that, but the "DT is ABI" statement has implications in terms of kernel <-> device tree compatibility, if you consider the fact that they can be delivered to a board through different channels. For example, you try to ship a bootloader that provides its own device tree to the kernel to support generic distros which don't come with device trees prepackaged, and you have to support 2 LTS kernels with that same device tree.