Re: [PATCH 03/15] dt-bindings: clock: qcom,dispcc-sm6125: Require GCC PLL0 DIV clock

[Marijn Suijten]

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