Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-135953-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 23:47:57 +0200
Message-Id: <D0F2LIG40N4N.100NU783PULAH@matfyz.cz>
To: "Sasha Levin" <sashal@kernel.org>
From: "Karel Balej" <balejk@matfyz.cz>
Cc: "Markuss Broks" <markuss.broks@gmail.com>,
        "Dmitry Torokhov"
 <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>, <duje.mihanovic@skole.hr>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.8 78/98] input/touchscreen: imagis: add
 support for IST3032C
References: <20240329123919.3087149-1-sashal@kernel.org>
 <20240329123919.3087149-78-sashal@kernel.org>
 <D06ZCKKYTQM5.3OJ6HCLHW3DZ9@matfyz.cz> <ZhMw3fwiSrbw9r6P@sashalap>
In-Reply-To: <ZhMw3fwiSrbw9r6P@sashalap>

Sasha Levin, 2024-04-07T19:48:45-04:00:
[...]
> >sorry if I'm missing something, but I don't see why this should be
> >backported: it doesn't fix anything, it's just adding support for new
> >hardware.
> >
> >I can see that adding a device ID is permitted for -stable [1], but I
> >thought it still has to bear some signs of a fix, such as maybe here
> >[2].
>
> It does not need to be a fix, it could just be plain device enablement.

OK, thank you, although I'm afraid I still don't follow the rationale
behind this, except maybe for some really trivial additions which do not
require any other changes.

I was also initially having a hard time understanding what your email
means -- I found no mention of AUTOSEL in the Documentation and was
unsure whether this is already the review cycle or not. Only later I
came across this article [1] which confirmed some of my suspicions and
made things slightly clearer.

If I were to add a few words to briefly mention AUTOSEL to the
stable-kernel-rules document according to my current understanding,
would you take such patch?

Alternatively, I suggest adding some sort of brief
description/explanation to these patches as is the case for patches from
the review cycle.

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/825536/

Best regards,
K. B.