Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:23:17 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@toradex.com>
Cc:     Marcel Ziswiler <marcel@ziswiler.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] arm: dts: imx7-colibri: remove spurious debounce
 property
Message-ID: <YysCNT2/qOi/BUC4@kroah.com>
References: <20220920092227.286306-1-marcel@ziswiler.com>
 <20220920092227.286306-5-marcel@ziswiler.com>
 <20220921121505.GA41442@francesco-nb.int.toradex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220921121505.GA41442@francesco-nb.int.toradex.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 02:15:05PM +0200, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> +Greg, to get an opinion on the fixes tag.
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:22:27AM +0200, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
> > From: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>
> > 
> > Remove spurious debounce property from linux,extcon-usb-gpio.
> > 
> > Note that debouncing is hard-coded to 20 ms (USB_GPIO_DEBOUNCE_MS
> > define).
> > 
> > Fixes: 0ef1969ea569 ("ARM: dts: imx7-colibri: move aliases, chosen, extcon and gpio-keys")
> > Signed-off-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>
> 
> Hello all,
> we did have some (internal) discussion if this patch should have the
> fixes tag or not.
> 
> I do personally think it should not have it and should not be backported
> to stable tree, since this is not fixing a real bug, it's just a
> cleanup.

If it's not a real bug, why would you have a Fixes: tag on the commit?

> On the other hand the original patch was not correct, and this change is
> making it right.

Ah, so it is a bugfix.

> What is the general opinion on this topic? What do the stable kernel
> maintainers would expect?

It's up to you, but what is the problem with it being backported?

> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst is about rules for
> backporting, it does not really talk about the fixes tag, but today this
> is used to decide if a patch should be backported or not.

We use Fixes: as a signal from maintainers and developers that do not
normally use the cc: stable@ as documented to pick up things that look
like fixes but someone forgot to ask to be backported.

It's not a guarantee it will be backported, like cc: stable will be, but
it is a hint to us that maybe it should be looked at.

thanks,

greg k-h