[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4c860ef0-d22d-5c2a-9657-7e2436b00101@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 12:00:44 +0530
From: "Mukunda,Vijendar" <vijendar.mukunda@....com>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>,
"Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Cc: "Katragadda, Mastan" <Mastan.Katragadda@....com>,
"Dommati, Sunil-kumar" <Sunil-kumar.Dommati@....com>,
"Hiregoudar, Basavaraj" <Basavaraj.Hiregoudar@....com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
"Saba Kareem, Syed" <Syed.SabaKareem@....com>,
"kondaveeti, Arungopal" <Arungopal.kondaveeti@....com>,
Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>,
Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] ASoC: amd: ps: create platform devices based on acp
config
On 02/02/23 04:38, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
> On 2/1/23 00:01, Mukunda,Vijendar wrote:
>> On 01/02/23 09:22, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> In above case, two manager instances will be created.
>>>>>> When manager under SWC1 scope tries to add peripheral
>>>>>> device, In sdw_slave_add() API its failing because peripheral
>>>>>> device descriptor uses link id followed by 48bit encoded address.
>>>>>> In above scenarios, both the manager's link id is zero only.
>>>>> what fails exactly? The device_register() ?
>>>>>
>>>>> If yes, what the issue. the device name?
>>>> device_register() is failing because of duplication of
>>>> device name.
>>>>> I wonder if we need to use something like
>>>>>
>>>>> "name shall be sdw:bus_id:link:mfg:part:class"
>>>>>
>>>>> so as to uniquify the device name, if that was the problem.
>>>> Yes correct.
>>> can you check https://github.com/thesofproject/linux/pull/4165 and see
>>> if this works for you? I tested it on Intel platforms.
>> It's working fine on our platform. As mentioned earlier in this thread,
>> we can't go with two ACPI companion device approach due to
>> limitations on windows stack for current platform.
> Thanks for testing.
>
> So if you can't go with 2 ACPI companion devices, what does the
> 'Windows' DSDT look like and how would you identify that there are two
> controllers on the platform?
We are not populating two controller devices. Instead of it, we are populating
single controller device with two independent manager instances under the same
ACPI device scope.
We have configuration register to identify sound wire manager instances on the platform.
Below is the sample DSDT for Windows & Linux.
Scope (\_SB.ACP)
{
Device (SDWC)
{
Name (_ADR, 0x05) // _ADR: Address
Name(_DSD, Package() {
ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"),
Package () {
Package (2) {"mipi-sdw-sw-interface-revision", 0x00010000},
Package (2) {"mipi-sdw-manager-list", 2},
},
ToUUID("dbb8e3e6-5886-4ba6-8795-1319f52a966b"),
Package () {
Package (2) {"mipi-sdw-link-0-subproperties", "SWM0"},
Package (2) {"mipi-sdw-link-1-subproperties", "SWM1"},
}
}) // End _DSD
Name(SWM0, Package() {
ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"),
Package () {
Package (2) {"mipi-sdw-sw-interface-revision", 0x00010000},
// ... place holder for SWM0 additional properties
}
}) // End SWM0.SWM
Name(SWM1,Package(){
ToUUID("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"),
Package () {
Package (2) {"mipi-sdw-sw-interface-revision", 0x00010000},
// ... place holder for SWM1 additional properties
}
}) // End SWM1.SWM
Device (SLV0) { // SoundWire Slave 0
Name(_ADR, 0x000032025D131601)
} // END SLV0
Device (SLV1) { // SoundWire Slave 1
Name(_ADR, 0x000130025D131601)
} // END SLV1
} // END SDWC
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists