On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:44:01AM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote:
Hello Saravana,
Certainly a Kconfig help text change seems trivial enough. But even the resistance to CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL has been quite surprising to me, given that every single defconfig in arch/arm/defconfig sets it:
$ find arch/arm/configs -type f | wc -l 122 $ fgrep -r CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y arch/arm/configs | wc -l 122 $
(that includes iMX, by the way...)
Certainly, neither Kconfig change is going to prevent us on OMAP from figuring out what else is needed to convert our platform to the common clock code. And given the level of enthusiasm on the lists, I don't think it's going to prevent many of the other ARM platforms from experimenting with the conversion, either.
So it would be interesting to know more about why you (or anyone else) perceive that the Kconfig changes would be harmful.
Mainly because COMMON_CLK is an invisible option which has to be selected by architectures. So with the Kconfig change we either have to:
config ARCH_MXC depends on EXPERIMENTAL
or:
config ARCH_MXC select EXPERIMENTAL select COMMON_CLK
Neither of both seems very appealing to me.
You can add a warning to the Kconfig help text if you like, I have no problem with that. As you said it will prevent noone from using it anyway.
Sascha