[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ee7da52-d86a-7784-8c00-6e5b4ae3ed96@pressers.name>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 12:58:11 -0500
From: Steven Presser <steve@...ssers.name>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...23.retrosnub.co.uk>,
Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars@...bit.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: accel: bmc150: Check for a second ACPI device for
BOSC0200
All,
I had a chance to sit back down with the machine. I didn't take it all
the way apart - there are pieces that I'm afraid of breaking without
directions on how to properly disassemble them.
However, I did recover an exact chip ID - the chips in use are BMA255s
[1]. Rather than take the machine apart (and because the chips are
2mmx2mm), I queried the chip over SMBus. On page 50 of the below
document, you can see that register 0x00 is a read-only chip ID. This
chipID is unique per Bosch product. So, using SMBus, I asked the chip
for it's chip ID (0xFA, in this case) and then searched likely products
until I found the matching chipID.
Does this suffice to settle which chips are in use? If not, I can
finish taking the machine apart, I'd just prefer to avoid the risk of
breaking something.
As soon as I finish screwing everything back together, I'll grab the
other software IDs asked for and build the branch referenced elsewhere.
Steve
[1]
https://ae-bst.resource.bosch.com/media/_tech/media/datasheets/BST-BMA255-DS004-05_published.pdf
On 01/30/2018 03:12 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Steven Presser <steve@...ssers.name> wrote:
>> On 01/30/2018 02:05 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Steven Presser <steve@...ssers.name>
>>> wrote:
>>>> First, I believe the "bmc150" in the subject line is in some way a
>>>> misnomer.
>>>> You'd have to ask Jeremy for more details on what he intended it to refer
>>>> to. However, I believe the device in question is actually the bma250[1],
>>>> which does not have a magnetometer component. I'm unfortunately away
>>>> from
>>>> my notes, but I can check later if you need me to verify the exact chip.
>>> Please do, I would really be on the safe side here.
>> Will do. My digital notes indicate I worked from what was exposed back to
>> what chip matched. If you can give me through Friday evening, I'll crack it
>> and do a visual verification. (Alas, I'm traveling and won't be back to it
>> until then).
> We are in the merge window anyway, so, no hurry.
>
> I'm looking right now in the clean solution. Looks promising.
>
>>> Bad, bad Lenovo. (DMI strings might help here)
>> What particular DMI strings would be helpful? All of them?
> Let's do this way. Create a bug on kernel bugzilla, attach output of
>
> % acpidump -o tables.dat # tables.dat file
> % grep -H 15 /sys/bus/acpi/devices/*/status
> % dmidecode
>
> and share the number here. I will take it.
>
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4370 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists