On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:35:43PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:26 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:48:58PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 7:01 AM Lukasz Majewski lukma@denx.de wrote:
Fabio, Stefano what do you think?
As we change the clock.c code, IMHO we shall do the new port properly.
I think the CCF solution proposed by Lukasz looks good and it will be easier to maintain and sync with the kernel.
This sounds like an important goal as well, to me. Thanks!
I don't know why we rely too-much on Linux to import the big stack code, since the requirement of U-Boot here is to handle the clocks as minimum(as required) as compared to what OS is looking for.
Are we looking for handling clock tree management for a whole or looking as required (or as simple) is the main criteria to think about.
We rely on leveraging Linux when possible for a lot of reasons. First, it's generally going to have to solve most of the same problems we have to solve. Second, it's what most folks are going to be familiar with. So if we can strip down that same framework to work for us, it'll make life easier on everyone involved.