[PATCH v7 1/3] Documentation: common clk API

Sascha Hauer s.hauer at pengutronix.de
Wed Mar 21 09:10:37 UTC 2012


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


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |



More information about the linaro-dev mailing list