Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jun 2023 09:29:53 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/15] dt-bindings: clock: qcom,dispcc-sm6125: Require GCC PLL0 DIV clock | From | Krzysztof Kozlowski <> |
| |
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
| |