On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 11:10:00AM +0300, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > On 12 May 2022, at 10:57, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 08:10:50AM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> >> Am 10.05.22 um 15:30 schrieb Maxime Ripard:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:20:18PM +0000, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
> >>>> May I ask what's the status/plan of  this patch series?
> >>> As far as I know it hasn't been merged yet.
> >>> 
> >>>> It seems it has not been merged yet, and I know we are a bit late in
> >>>> the 5.18 schedule, but I think this is a good fix for 5.18.
> >>> Fix for what? I don't think this series fix any bug?
> >> 
> >> This seems to be a "fix" for the Frankenstone scenario: mainline kernel +
> >> vendor DT
> > 
> > Did we ever support this?
> > 
> > I don't think we did, so even though it can be nice to improve that
> > situation, I don't think it's worth sending this to stable
> 
> Yes, maybe not stable material, but considering support for devices
> which are shipped with upstream Linux and vendor device tree blobs,
> saved somewhere on them, should be pretty normal to expect, right?

Not really?

If the vendor in question uses a binding that has never been reviewed,
accepted, and supported by upstream, then I don't see what upstream
should be doing to accommodate for that situation?

Maxime