> On Jun 1, 2018, at 3:45 PM, Paul Goyette <p...@whooppee.com> wrote: > > There is at least one i2c bus controller that explicitly doesn't handle > "quick" transactions - the imc controller built into the Intel X99 chip-set. > The docs are pretty clear that it implements an absolute minimum subset of > i2c, just barely enough to talk to the SPD ROMs on memory DIMMs. Wait, are you sure about that? The X99 data sheet explicitly says is supports the SMBus “quick” command. -- thorpej
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Brad Spencer
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Brad Spencer
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Brad Spencer
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Paul Goyette
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Paul Goyette
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Paul Goyette
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Thor Lancelot Simon
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Martin Husemann
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Paul Goyette
- Re: i2c and indirect vs. direct config Jason Thorpe