[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130820211827.4443.97943@quantum>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:18:27 -0700
From: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
To: Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@...escale.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI mailing list <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: imx6q: refactor some ldb related clocks
Quoting Fabio Estevam (2013-08-20 08:40:52)
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@...escale.com> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt
> > index 5a90a72..90e923e 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt
> > @@ -89,8 +89,6 @@ clocks and IDs.
> > gpu3d_shader 74
> > ipu1_podf 75
> > ipu2_podf 76
> > - ldb_di0_podf 77
> > - ldb_di1_podf 78
> > ipu1_di0_pre 79
> > ipu1_di1_pre 80
> > ipu2_di0_pre 81
>
> This causes a 'hole' in the clock numbering scheme: 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, etc
How does this fit in with the idea of having a stable binding/ABI? Seems
like changing this would be a bad idea for devices in the field that
have older DTBs.
Regards,
Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists