Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 03:51:07PM -0700, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> 
> > On Jun 2, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost> wrote:
> > 
> > There's the "minimal-functionality" controller that sits on the "system management PCI bus" and driven by the imc/imcsmb driver.
> 
> 
> OMG, what a dumpster fire.  Geez, if they were going to to for minimal functionality, why even bother with dumb logic like that??  A pair of GPIO pins would have been better!

I have a dumb suggestion.

Would we avoid, in the end, pain and suffering if we didn't treat this
controller (or controllers like it) as i2c controllers, and just provided
alternate attachements for the leaf drivers?

Then we'd be free to use more sophisticated methods with "real" i2c
controllers, and only do potentially invasive things when we found a
nasty pseudo-i2c one.

Thor