From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:18:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: imx6q: refactor some ldb related clocks In-Reply-To: References: <1376987932-5540-1-git-send-email-Ying.Liu@freescale.com> <1376987932-5540-2-git-send-email-Ying.Liu@freescale.com> Message-ID: <20130820211827.4443.97943@quantum> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Quoting Fabio Estevam (2013-08-20 08:40:52) > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Liu Ying wrote: > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt > > index 5a90a72..90e923e 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx6q-clock.txt > > @@ -89,8 +89,6 @@ clocks and IDs. > > gpu3d_shader 74 > > ipu1_podf 75 > > ipu2_podf 76 > > - ldb_di0_podf 77 > > - ldb_di1_podf 78 > > ipu1_di0_pre 79 > > ipu1_di1_pre 80 > > ipu2_di0_pre 81 > > This causes a 'hole' in the clock numbering scheme: 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, etc How does this fit in with the idea of having a stable binding/ABI? Seems like changing this would be a bad idea for devices in the field that have older DTBs. Regards, Mike > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel