On Tuesday 20 March 2012, Paul Walmsley wrote:

Hello Arnd,

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

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