Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2015, 12:42:44 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > On 07/30/2015 11:04 AM, Heiko Stübner wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2015, 10:36:43 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > >> Is it being used in DT right now and causing regressions on > >> v4.2-rcX? Sorry, I'm trying to understand why this patch matters > >> for the 4.2 release. > > > > it's not been used in an actual devicetree file, but as far as I > > understand it, the dt-binding headers themself are also part of the ABI. > > > > And it is new in 4.2, so has not been part of an official release yet. > > > > The reason for the removal from what I understand is that the removed > > clock is not documented at all (it's source, what it does), which got it > > the "clk_null" parent in the first place. > > Right, so my understanding of the DT ABI thing is that newer kernels > should keep working with older DTs. If there isn't any DT using the > binding, then we don't have a problem because the only thing that could > happen would be a newer DT working with an older kernel, which doesn't > make any sense from a backwards incompatible standpoint. > > If you feel strongly that some sort of DT ABI rule would be broken and > you want to make sure that doesn't happen I guess we can queue this up > to be sent off to Linus, but if you aren't worried (and I'm obviously > not worried) then I'd prefer we just queue it up for 4.3. I don't feel strongly, it was only based on what I remember about all the dt- ABI talk :-) . Aka if you're ok with it simply going into 4.3 that should be ok too from my pov. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
