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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
