On 27/06/2023 09:49, Marijn Suijten wrote: > On 2023-06-27 09:29:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> 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. > > The question is whether this is allowed? That would be an ABI break and I already explained if it is or is not allowed. Best regards, Krzysztof
