Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <5a19a73a-e81a-8f7e-e26c-6c1d8e8331a4@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jun 2022 12:02:17 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: mmc: mtk-sd: Set clocks based on
 compatible
Content-Language: en-US
To:     =?UTF-8?B?TsOtY29sYXMgRi4gUi4gQS4gUHJhZG8=?= 
        <nfraprado@collabora.com>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc:     kernel@collabora.com,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@mediatek.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Wenbin Mei <wenbin.mei@mediatek.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220623154038.771874-1-nfraprado@collabora.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220623154038.771874-1-nfraprado@collabora.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/06/2022 17:40, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> The binding was describing a single clock list for all platforms, but
> that's not really suitable: mt2712 requires an extra 'bus_clk' on some
> of its controllers, while mt8192 requires four different extra clocks.
> The rest of the platforms can share the same 3 clocks, with the third
> being optional as it's not present on all platforms.
> 
> Move the clock definitions inside if blocks that match on the
> compatibles. In practice this gets rid of dtbs_check warnings on mt8192,
> since the 'bus_clk' clock from mt2712 is no longer expected on this
> platform.

And now we see that you introduce incompatible change and ABI break.
This should not be combined with that patch but instead separate patch
explaining why ABI break is ok.

Best regards,
Krzysztof