Re: [PATCH 03/15] dt-bindings: clock: qcom,dispcc-sm6125: Require GCC PLL0 DIV clock
From: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
Date: 2023-06-27 07:50:12
Also in:
dri-devel, linux-arm-msm, linux-clk, lkml
On 2023-06-27 09:29:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 27/06/2023 08:54, Marijn Suijten wrote:quoted
On 2023-06-27 08:24:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:quoted
On 26/06/2023 20:53, Marijn Suijten wrote:quoted
On 2023-06-26 20:51:38, Marijn Suijten wrote: <snip>quoted
quoted
Not really, binding also defines the list of clocks - their order and specific entries. This changes.And so it does in "dt-bindings: clock: qcom,dispcc-sm6125: Remove unused GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK"?Never mind: it is the last item so the order of the other items doesn't change. The total number of items decreases though, which sounds like an ABI-break too?How does it break? Old DTS works exactly the same, doesn't it?So deleting a new item at the end does not matter. But what if I respin this patch to add the new clock _at the end_, which will then be at the same index as the previous GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK?I think you know the answer, right? What do you want to prove? That two independent changes can have together negative effect? We know this.
The question is whether this is allowed? - Marijn