Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Sep 2022 14:23:17 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] arm: dts: imx7-colibri: remove spurious debounce property |
| |
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
| |