On 2023-06-27 10:21:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/06/2023 09:49, Marijn Suijten wrote: > > 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? > > That would be an ABI break and I already explained if it is or is not > allowed. How should we solve it then, if we cannot remove GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK in one patch and add GCC_DISP_GPLL0_DIV_CLK_SRC **at the end** in the next patch? Keep an empty spot at the original index of GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK? - Marijn
