Re: [PATCH] iio: imu: bmi270: Match ACPI ID found on newer GPD firmware

[Cryolitia PukNgae <liziyao@uniontech.com>]

Dear Maintainer,

Thank you for your reply. I apologize for the confusion regarding the 
PNP VID assignment - you are absolutely correct that "BMI0260" is not an 
official Bosch PNP ID. Let me provide a more detailed context.

GPD devices originally used BMI160 sensors with the "BMI0160" PNP ID. 
When they switched to BMI260 sensors in newer hardware, they reused the 
existing Windows driver which accepts both "BMI0160" and "BMI0260" IDs. 
Consequently, they kept "BMI0160" in DSDT tables for new BMI260 devices, 
causing driver mismatches in Linux.

Current Situation:
   1. GPD updated BIOS v0.40+ for newer devices to report "BMI0260" for 
BMI260 sensors to avoid loading bmi160 driver on Linux. While this isn't 
Bosch's VID:
   2. Bosch's official Windows driver uses "BMI0260" as a compatible ID
   3. The ID "BMI0160" already exists in mainline (drivers/iio/imu/bmi160)
   4. We're seeing real devices shipping with "BMI0260" in DSDT

Given the challenges we've faced in communicating with GPD regarding 
Linux support, it seems unlikely that we can push for another change; 
they are solely focused on ensuring compatibility with Bosch's official 
Windows driver. Unfortunately, I do not have the means to contact Bosch 
and urge them to abandon the use of these non-standard IDs.

Given existing devices use "BMI0260" and Windows drivers validate this 
ID pattern, I propose temporarily adding it to bmi270_acpi_match as a 
compatibility measure. This would immediately benefit already existing 
users.

I'm happy to provide DSDT excerpts from GPD Win Max 2 2023 devices 
showing the "BMI0260" declaration if needed.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Best regards,
Cryolitia PukNgae

在 2025/7/31 04:57, Andy Shevchenko 写道:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 2:56 PM Cryolitia PukNgae via B4 Relay
> <devnull+liziyao.uniontech.com@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> From: Cryolitia PukNgae <liziyao@uniontech.com>
>>
>> Some GPD devices ship a buggy firmware that describes on-device BMI260
>> with ACPI ID "BMI0160". Since this is fixed in BIOS update v0.40,
>> let's match the correct ID to detect the device. The buggy ID "BMI0160"
>> is kept as well to maintain compatibility with older firmwares.
> 
> No, it's not true. See below why,
> 
>> ---
>> Some GPD devices ship a buggy firmware that describes on-device BMI260
>> with ACPI ID "BMI0160". Since this is fixed in BIOS update v0.40[1],
>> let's match the correct ID to detect the device. The buggy ID "BMI0160"
>> is kept as well to maintain compatibility with older firmwares.
>>
>> Link: http://download.softwincn.com/WIN%20Max%202024/Max2-7840-BIOS-V0.41.zip
>>
>> [1]. See the update nodes in the archive file above
> 
> Yeah... I think you need one more attempt to fix it right.
> 
> ...
> 
>>   static const struct acpi_device_id bmi270_acpi_match[] = {
>>          /* GPD Win Mini, Aya Neo AIR Pro, OXP Mini Pro, etc. */
>>          { "BMI0160",  (kernel_ulong_t)&bmi260_chip_info },
> 
> Unbelievable! How is the above supposed to work? Do we have DMI quirks
> in both drivers (bmi160 and bmi270)?
> 
>> +       /* GPD Win Max 2 2023(sincice BIOS v0.40), etc. */
>> +       { "BMI0260",  (kernel_ulong_t)&bmi260_chip_info },
> 
> For the record this is incorrect ACPI ID, nor PNP ID for Bosh, unless
> I missed that https://www.bensonmedical.com/ is bought by Bosh or part
> of the groups of the companies.,
> 
>>          { }
>>   };
> 
> Can you work with Bosh to resolve this as soon as possible and use a
> real Bosh ACPI ID (BOSCxxxx) or PNP ID (BSGxxxx)?
> Also, each ACPI ID adding patch (when it's incorrect) must provide a
> DSDT excerpt in the commit message to show this. Ideally this also
> should be confirmed by the vendor of the device (GPD) that the ID is
> incorrect and a correct one needs to be used.
>