On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hello Arnd, > > On Sat, 17 Mar 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > I think it's rather pointless, because the option is not going to > > be user selectable but will get selected by the platform unless I'm > > mistaken. The platform maintainers that care already know the state > > of the framework. > > This is where we have differing views, I think. Clearly, Sascha, > Saravana, Rob, and I have at least slightly different opinions on the > durability of the existing API and code. So it seems reasonable to assume > that others who have not followed the development of the common clock code > might mistake the implementation or API as being stable and well-defined. > > It sounds like the primary objection is to the use of CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL. > So here is a patch to simply note the status of this code in its Kconfig > text. Yes, looks good to me. If there are no objections, I'll apply this one. Thanks, Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
