On 18/04/2023 12:23, Trevor Wu (吳文良) wrote: >> Actually, doing that is borderline-ok... there's no devicetree for >> MT8188 >> upstream, so that's not breaking anything at all. >> In any case, I agree that you should generally avoid doing that but I >> think >> that in this specific case it's fine; I'm not a devicetree maintainer >> though. >> >> P.S.: Trevor, next time please make reviewers aware of the fact that >> no 8188 >> devicetree is present upstream! >> > Got it. Thanks. > > > Hi krzysztof, > > Because there is no upstream mt8188 DTS, should I move the new clock to > the end of clock list? What is the reason to add them in the middle? So far there was no argument, so always add at the end. If you have an argument, let's discuss it. > > If I move "apll1_d4" to the end of the list at binding file, when I > upstream the devicetree node existing clocks and clock-names properties > , should I follow the sequence defined in dt-bindings If you do not follow the sequence of bindings, you upstream incorrect DTS which does not follow ABI and fails the tests. Therefore yes, use the same order as your bindings define. > or can I have a > new sequence based on the clock type or alphabet? Sorry, I don't know what is the order of clock type and alphabet. If you mean anything else than bindings, then no, because how is it supposed to work then? Best regards, Krzysztof
