Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Move x1e80100 TCSR to own binding

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 01:20:39PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 12:27:31AM -0700, Qiang Yu wrote:
> > +  clocks:
> > +    items:
> > +      - description: TCXO pad clock
> > +
> > +  reg:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  '#clock-cells':
> > +    const: 1
> > +
> > +  '#reset-cells':
> > +    const: 1
> > +
> > +  vdda-qrefrpt0-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qrefrpt1-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qrefrpt2-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qrefrpt3-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qrefrpt4-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qrefrx0-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qrefrx1-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qrefrx2-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qrefrx3-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qrefrx4-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qreftx0-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qreftx0-1p2-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qreftx1-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-qreftx1-1p2-supply: true
> > +  vdda-refgen0-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-refgen0-1p2-supply: true
> > +  vdda-refgen2-0p9-supply: true
> > +  vdda-refgen2-1p2-supply: true
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - clocks
> > +  - '#clock-cells'
> > +  - '#reset-cells'
> 
> This is unexplained ABI change. When you are asked, you need to address
> feedback from LLM, not blindly implement it without checking its
> validity.
>
After adding these two properties to the required list, I ran a dtb
check and saw no related errors or warnings. But I overlooked one
thing: my dtb check was against the current tree only. This change
could make dtb checks fail for historical TCSR DT nodes that did not
have these two properties. So to be safe, I don't think they should be
added to the required list.

- Qiang Yu