On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 02:17:11PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 06-04-17 13:03, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 09:24 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > The INT33FE ACPI device has a CRS table with I2cSerialBusV2 resources > > > for > > > 3 devices: Maxim MAX17047 Fuel Gauge Controller, FUSB302 USB Type-C > > > Controller and PI3USB30532 USB switch. > > > > > > This commit adds a driver for this ACPI device which instantiates > > > i2c-clients for these, so that the standard i2c drivers for these > > > chips > > > can bind to the them. > > > > Given one more thought, if the devices should be present all to make it > > work, than you perhaps may use component framework. > > Actually the fuel-guage is completely independent, the PI3USB30532 USB > switch will get set based on extcon cable events from the FUSB302 USB > Type-C controller, but otherwise both drivers are independent and the > FUSB302 USB Type-C controller pretty much operates stand-alone. > > > In this case this so called "pseudo" device is not so pseudo, but > > "master". > > I think this is really some Windows weirdness, if I configure the BIOS > to boot "Android" the ACPI INT33FE device goes away and instead I > get 3 separate ACPI devices for the 3 chips. So if this is this case, what is the value in supporting "windows weirdness" if the end user can select "Android" and be presented with 3 separate devices? -- Darren Hart VMware Open Source Technology Center
