On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 16:31 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 10:48:36PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 16:49 +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > So, it looks to me now as bikeshedding, otherwise where is the > > documentation which describes how this all stuff should work? > > > > Can we go with the initial patch? > > If it looks like some nightmare to fix the DM uclass, I suppose, but, > is > it really that bad off atm? So, I have looked more, I even start creating patches and it's a deep hole. It looks like that class has nothing to do with the main purpose of watchdog. There is no integration into U-Boot watchdog infrastructure (to actually use it). I'm about to test what I have, I need to correct a bit still, and will send a v3 using old approach. I will send patches against WDT class as RFC, but I'm not going to support them. My opinion is steady now -- that class is unusable in the current state. P.S. If I'm missing something obvious I would like to hear it ASAP to make my driver use that class. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot