On 2023-06-27 09:29:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/06/2023 08:54, Marijn Suijten wrote: > > On 2023-06-27 08:24:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 26/06/2023 20:53, Marijn Suijten wrote: > >>> On 2023-06-26 20:51:38, Marijn Suijten wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>>>> Not really, binding also defines the list of clocks - their order and > >>>>> specific entries. This changes. > >>>> > >>>> And so it does in "dt-bindings: clock: qcom,dispcc-sm6125: Remove unused > >>>> GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK"? > >>> > >>> Never mind: it is the last item so the order of the other items doesn't > >>> change. The total number of items decreases though, which sounds like > >>> an ABI-break too? > >> > >> How does it break? Old DTS works exactly the same, doesn't it? > > > > 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? - Marijn
