On 26/06/2023 19:49, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> On 2023-06-26 18:10:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/06/2023 21:48, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-24 11:08:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 24/06/2023 03:45, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> On 24.06.2023 02:41, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>>>> The "gcc_disp_gpll0_div_clk_src" clock is consumed by the driver, will
>>>>>> be passed from DT, and should be required by the bindings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fixes: 8397c9c0c26b ("dt-bindings: clock: add QCOM SM6125 display clock bindings")
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> Ideally, you'd stick it at the bottom of the list, as the items: order
>>>>> is part of the ABI
>>>>
>>>> Yes, please add them to the end. Order is fixed.
>>>
>>> Disagreed for bindings that declare clock-names and when the driver
>>> adheres to it, see my reply to Konrad's message.
>>
>> That's the generic rule, with some exceptions of course. Whether one
>> chosen driver (chosen system and chosen version of that system) adheres
>> or not, does not change it. Other driver behaves differently and ABI is
>> for everyone, not only for your specific version of Linux driver.
>>
>> Follow the rule.
>
> This has no relation to the driver (just that our driver adheres to the
> bindings, as it is supposed to be). The bindings define a mapping from
> a clock-names=<> entry to a clock on the same index in the clocks=<>
> array. That relation remains the same with this change.
Not really, binding also defines the list of clocks - their order and
specific entries. This changes.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
