On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 04:30:37PM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 17/12/2024 16:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 17/12/2024 17:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > > > On 17/12/2024 14:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > > On 17/12/2024 15:06, Vikram Sharma wrote: > > > > > This patch change clock names to make it consistent with > > > > > existing platforms as gcc_cam_hf_axi -> gcc_axi_hf. > > > > > This also adds gcc_axi_sf and remove gcc_camera_ahb. > > > > > > > > Don't combine ABI changes with some less important things. > > > > > > > > You miss here explanation why doing the ABI change in the first place. > > > > Without that explanation I find it rather churn. But anyway, reason for > > > > ABI break and impact should be documented in commit msg. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vikram Sharma <quic_vikramsa@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Krzysztof > > > > > > This change should be fine since we haven't committed and upstream dtsi, > > > so there's no ABI to break yet. > > > > > > Agree the cover letter should have been explicit in explaining. > > > > So these are recently added bindings (sc7280 is not particularly new)? > > If so mention in the commit msg that no users are affected because of this. > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof > > Agreed. > > The commit log should make clear that the ABI hasn't been cemented yet. > > 20241217140656.965235-4-quic_vikramsa@xxxxxxxxxxx <- is still pending If it hasn't been comitted yet, isn't it better to post a fixed version rather than committing a version which has known issues? > > --- > bod -- With best wishes Dmitry
