Hi Corey, On Sat, 22 May 2021, at 03:06, Corey Minyard wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 03:11:57PM +0930, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This is the 3rd spin of the series refactoring the keyboard-controller-style > > device drivers in the IPMI subsystem. > > This is a nice set of cleanups outside of just allowing raw access. > I'll let you handle Zev's comments and a few of mine. Thanks for taking the time to review the series. I'll address the comments from you both in v4. > > I almost hate to ask this, but would there be value in allowing the BT > driver to use this abstract interface? Hmm. Possibly, but it's not something I've looked at yet. If we did want to go down that path I don't think it would be too difficult, but I don't have a need to touch the BT side of it right now. > Or maybe it would be just too > hard to get a common abstraction, more work than it's worth. It's > surprising that more people don't want BT as it's vastly superior to > KCS. For bulk data, certainly. However for the use-cases I have I'm using the KCS interface as a control channel that isn't data intensive. Interrupts, a small command set (256 values are more than enough) and a status byte are all I'm really after, so BT is more than I need. Plus for the systems I'm working on we're still using BT for in-band IPMI while we transition to MCTP/PLDM. The current BT implementation is working fine for that :) Cheers, Andrew
