linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.8 78/98] input/touchscreen: imagis: add support for IST3032C

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <D0F2LIG40N4N.100NU783PULAH@matfyz.cz>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 23:47:57 +0200
From: "Karel Balej" <balejk@...fyz.cz>
To: "Sasha Levin" <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: "Markuss Broks" <markuss.broks@...il.com>,
        "Dmitry Torokhov"
 <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <duje.mihanovic@...le.hr>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.8 78/98] input/touchscreen: imagis: add
 support for IST3032C

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.