On 2023-06-27 11:07:22, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/06/2023 11:02, Marijn Suijten wrote: > >>>>> 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. > > > > How should we solve it then, if we cannot remove GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK in one > > patch and add GCC_DISP_GPLL0_DIV_CLK_SRC **at the end** in the next > > patch? Keep an empty spot at the original index of GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK? > > I don't know if you are trolling me or really asking question, so just > in case it is the latter: Apologies if it comes across that way, but I am genuinely misunderstanding what is and is not allowed as part of this ABI... > "No one is locked into the ABI. SoC maintainer decides on this. " Especially if it is up to the SoC mantainer. > Also: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230608152759.GA2721945-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/CAL_JsqKOq+PdjUPVYqdC7QcjGxp-KbAG_O9e+zrfY7k-wRr1QQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220602143245.GA2256965-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220601202452.GA365963-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Any many more. In that sense the question above is not for you, but for the SoC maintainer? Whom, I hope, will say that we can be lenient in changing the ABI for a platform that is only slowly being brought up by a bunch of community developers and unlikely to be touched by anyone else. Thanks for helping out so far! - Marijn
