Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] Add 10EC5280 to bmi160_i2c ACPI IDs to allow binding on some devices

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 06:11:33PM +0100, Jesus Gonzalez wrote:
> "10EC5280" is used by several manufacturers like Lenovo, GPD, or AYA (and
> probably others) in their ACPI table as the ID for the bmi160 IMU. This
> means the bmi160_i2c driver won't bind to it, and the IMU is unavailable
> to the user. Manufacturers have been approached on several occasions to
> try getting a BIOS with a fixed ID, mostly without actual positive
> results, and since affected devices are already a few years old, this is
> not expected to change. This patch enables using the bmi160_i2c driver for
> the bmi160 IMU on these devices.
> 
> Here is the relevant extract from the DSDT of a GPD Win Max 2 (AMD 6800U
> model) with the latest firmware 1.05 installed. GPD sees this as WONTFIX
> with the argument of the device working with the Windows drivers.
> 
> 	Device (BMA2)
> 	{
> 	    Name (_ADR, Zero)  // _ADR: Address
> 	    Name (_HID, "10EC5280")  // _HID: Hardware ID
> 	    Name (_CID, "10EC5280")  // _CID: Compatible ID
> 	    Name (_DDN, "Accelerometer")  // _DDN: DOS Device Name
> 	    Name (_UID, One)  // _UID: Unique ID
> 	    Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized)  // _CRS: Current Resource Settings
> 	    {
> 		Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate ()
> 		{
> 		    I2cSerialBusV2 (0x0069, ControllerInitiated, 0x00061A80,
> 		        AddressingMode7Bit, "\\_SB.I2CC",
> 		        0x00, ResourceConsumer, , Exclusive,
> 		        )
> 		})
> 		Return (RBUF) /* \_SB_.I2CC.BMA2._CRS.RBUF */
> 	    }
> 	    
> 	    ...
> 	    
> 	}

...

> +/*
> + * FIRMWARE BUG WORKAROUND: ID "10EC5280"
> + * Some manufacturers like GPD, Lenovo or Aya used the incorrect
> + * ID "10EC5280" for bmi160 in their DSDT. A fixed firmware is not
> + * available as of Feb 2024 after trying to work with OEMs, and
> + * this is not expected to change anymore since at least some of
> + * the affected devices are from 2021/2022.
> + */

The location of the comment is wrong, it should be...

>  static const struct acpi_device_id bmi160_acpi_match[] = {

...here as you have had it previously. Just make sure it properly formed.

Maybe Jonathan can amend when applying, dunno.

> +	{"10EC5280", 0},
>  	{"BMI0160", 0},
>  	{ },

With the comment in the proper location,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko