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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

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.

Best regards,
Krzysztof