linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: mmc: mtk-sd: Set clocks based on compatible

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]

Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 12:02:17 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Nícolas F. R. A. Prado 
        <nfraprado@...labora.com>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     kernel@...labora.com,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@...iatek.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Wenbin Mei <wenbin.mei@...iatek.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: mmc: mtk-sd: Set clocks based on
 compatible

On 23/06/2022 17:40, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> The binding was describing a single clock list for all platforms, but
> that's not really suitable: mt2712 requires an extra 'bus_clk' on some
> of its controllers, while mt8192 requires four different extra clocks.
> The rest of the platforms can share the same 3 clocks, with the third
> being optional as it's not present on all platforms.
> 
> Move the clock definitions inside if blocks that match on the
> compatibles. In practice this gets rid of dtbs_check warnings on mt8192,
> since the 'bus_clk' clock from mt2712 is no longer expected on this
> platform.

And now we see that you introduce incompatible change and ABI break.
This should not be combined with that patch but instead separate patch
explaining why ABI break is ok.

Best regards,
Krzysztof