[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <683a6f7e-bf1a-aff2-070b-472fb14e0353@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:29:53 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Krishna Manikandan <quic_mkrishn@...cinc.com>,
~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>,
Jami Kettunen <jami.kettunen@...ainline.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, Lux Aliaga <they@...t.lgbt>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] dt-bindings: clock: qcom,dispcc-sm6125: Require GCC
PLL0 DIV clock
On 27/06/2023 08:54, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2023-06-27 08:24:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 26/06/2023 20:53, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-26 20:51:38, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> 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.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists