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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 27/06/2023 11:02, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>>> 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?

I don't know if you are trolling me or really asking question, so just
in case it is the latter:

"No one is locked into the ABI. SoC maintainer decides on this. "

Also:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20230608152759.GA2721945-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/CAL_JsqKOq+PdjUPVYqdC7QcjGxp-KbAG_O9e+zrfY7k-wRr1QQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220602143245.GA2256965-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20220601202452.GA365963-robh@xxxxxxxxxx/

Any many more.

Best regards,
Krzysztof