On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 02:18:27PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Fabio Estevam (2013-08-20 08:40:52) > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Liu Ying <Ying.Liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt > > > index 5a90a72..90e923e 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt > > > @@ -89,8 +89,6 @@ clocks and IDs. > > > gpu3d_shader 74 > > > ipu1_podf 75 > > > ipu2_podf 76 > > > - ldb_di0_podf 77 > > > - ldb_di1_podf 78 > > > ipu1_di0_pre 79 > > > ipu1_di1_pre 80 > > > ipu2_di0_pre 81 > > > > This causes a 'hole' in the clock numbering scheme: 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, etc > > How does this fit in with the idea of having a stable binding/ABI? Seems > like changing this would be a bad idea for devices in the field that > have older DTBs. We should be safe since none of existing DTBs refers to the clocks (they are not leaf clocks in the whole clock tree but some interconnection ones). Shawn _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
