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. Regards, Mike > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
