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

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2023-06-26 20:29:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/06/2023 19:49, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > On 2023-06-26 18:10:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 25/06/2023 21:48, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >>> On 2023-06-24 11:08:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 24/06/2023 03:45, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>>>> On 24.06.2023 02:41, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >>>>>> The "gcc_disp_gpll0_div_clk_src" clock is consumed by the driver, will
> >>>>>> be passed from DT, and should be required by the bindings.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 8397c9c0c26b ("dt-bindings: clock: add QCOM SM6125 display clock bindings")
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten at somainline.org>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>> Ideally, you'd stick it at the bottom of the list, as the items: order
> >>>>> is part of the ABI
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, please add them to the end. Order is fixed.
> >>>
> >>> Disagreed for bindings that declare clock-names and when the driver
> >>> adheres to it, see my reply to Konrad's message.
> >>
> >> That's the generic rule, with some exceptions of course. Whether one
> >> chosen driver (chosen system and chosen version of that system) adheres
> >> or not, does not change it. Other driver behaves differently and ABI is
> >> for everyone, not only for your specific version of Linux driver.
> >>
> >> Follow the rule.
> > 
> > This has no relation to the driver (just that our driver adheres to the
> > bindings, as it is supposed to be).  The bindings define a mapping from
> > a clock-names=<> entry to a clock on the same index in the clocks=<>
> > array.  That relation remains the same with this change.
> 
> 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"?

- Marijn