From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] clk: mediatek: Removed unused dpi_ck clock from MT8173 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 22:07:55 +0200 Message-ID: <2512315.QAADqjoYKs@diego> References: <1438152754-11970-1-git-send-email-jamesjj.liao@mediatek.com> <1450634.BBmUdb8ZLk@diego> <55BA7E34.2050206@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55BA7E34.2050206@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: James Liao , Matthias Brugger , Mike Turquette , srv_heupstream@mediatek.com, Daniel Kurtz , Ricky Liang , Rob Herring , Sascha Hauer , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2015, 12:42:44 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > On 07/30/2015 11:04 AM, Heiko St=FCbner wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2015, 10:36:43 schrieb Stephen Boyd: > >> Is it being used in DT right now and causing regressions on > >> v4.2-rcX? Sorry, I'm trying to understand why this patch matters > >> for the 4.2 release. > >=20 > > it's not been used in an actual devicetree file, but as far as I > > understand it, the dt-binding headers themself are also part of the= ABI. > >=20 > > And it is new in 4.2, so has not been part of an official release y= et. > >=20 > > The reason for the removal from what I understand is that the remov= ed > > clock is not documented at all (it's source, what it does), which g= ot it > > the "clk_null" parent in the first place. >=20 > Right, so my understanding of the DT ABI thing is that newer kernels > should keep working with older DTs. If there isn't any DT using the > binding, then we don't have a problem because the only thing that cou= ld > happen would be a newer DT working with an older kernel, which doesn'= t > make any sense from a backwards incompatible standpoint. >=20 > If you feel strongly that some sort of DT ABI rule would be broken an= d > you want to make sure that doesn't happen I guess we can queue this u= p > to be sent off to Linus, but if you aren't worried (and I'm obviously > not worried) then I'd prefer we just queue it up for 4.3. I don't feel strongly, it was only based on what I remember about all t= he dt- ABI talk :-) . Aka if you're ok with it simply going into 4.3 that shou= ld be=20 ok too from my pov.