On 22-10-19, 18:48, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
The uniqueID is useful when there are two or more devices of the same type (identical manufacturer ID, part ID) on the same link.
Right!
When there is a single device of a given type on a link, its uniqueID is irrelevant. It's not uncommon on actual platforms to see variations of the uniqueID, or differences between devID registers and ACPI _ADR fields.
Ideally this should be fixed in firmware, I do not like the fact the we are poking in core for firmware issues!
This patch suggests a filter on startup to identify 'single' devices and tag them accordingly.
So you try to see if the board has a single device and mark them so that you can skip the unique id, did I get that right?
What about the boards which have multiple devices? How doing solve these?
The uniqueID is then not used for the probe, and the device name omits the uniqueID as well.
Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com
drivers/soundwire/bus.c | 7 +++--- drivers/soundwire/slave.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c index fc53dbe57f85..be5d437058ed 100644 --- a/drivers/soundwire/bus.c +++ b/drivers/soundwire/bus.c @@ -422,10 +422,11 @@ static struct sdw_slave *sdw_get_slave(struct sdw_bus *bus, int i)
static int sdw_compare_devid(struct sdw_slave *slave, struct sdw_slave_id id) {
- if (slave->id.unique_id != id.unique_id ||
slave->id.mfg_id != id.mfg_id ||
- if (slave->id.mfg_id != id.mfg_id || slave->id.part_id != id.part_id ||
slave->id.class_id != id.class_id)
slave->id.class_id != id.class_id ||(slave->id.unique_id != SDW_IGNORED_UNIQUE_ID &&slave->id.unique_id != id.unique_id))return -ENODEV;
return 0;
diff --git a/drivers/soundwire/slave.c b/drivers/soundwire/slave.c index 5dbc76772d21..19919975bb6d 100644 --- a/drivers/soundwire/slave.c +++ b/drivers/soundwire/slave.c @@ -29,10 +29,17 @@ static int sdw_slave_add(struct sdw_bus *bus, slave->dev.parent = bus->dev; slave->dev.fwnode = fwnode;
- /* name shall be sdw:link:mfg:part:class:unique */
- dev_set_name(&slave->dev, "sdw:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x",
bus->link_id, id->mfg_id, id->part_id,id->class_id, id->unique_id);
if (id->unique_id == SDW_IGNORED_UNIQUE_ID) {
/* name shall be sdw:link:mfg:part:class */dev_set_name(&slave->dev, "sdw:%x:%x:%x:%x",bus->link_id, id->mfg_id, id->part_id,id->class_id);} else {
/* name shall be sdw:link:mfg:part:class:unique */dev_set_name(&slave->dev, "sdw:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x",bus->link_id, id->mfg_id, id->part_id,id->class_id, id->unique_id);}
slave->dev.release = sdw_slave_release; slave->dev.bus = &sdw_bus_type;
@@ -103,6 +110,7 @@ static bool find_slave(struct sdw_bus *bus, int sdw_acpi_find_slaves(struct sdw_bus *bus) { struct acpi_device *adev, *parent;
struct acpi_device *adev2, *parent2;
parent = ACPI_COMPANION(bus->dev); if (!parent) {
@@ -112,10 +120,46 @@ int sdw_acpi_find_slaves(struct sdw_bus *bus)
list_for_each_entry(adev, &parent->children, node) { struct sdw_slave_id id;
struct sdw_slave_id id2;bool ignore_unique_id = true;if (!find_slave(bus, adev, &id)) continue;
/* brute-force O(N^2) search for duplicates */parent2 = parent;list_for_each_entry(adev2, &parent2->children, node) {if (adev == adev2)continue;if (!find_slave(bus, adev2, &id2))continue;if (id.sdw_version != id2.sdw_version ||id.mfg_id != id2.mfg_id ||id.part_id != id2.part_id ||id.class_id != id2.class_id)continue;if (id.unique_id != id2.unique_id) {dev_dbg(bus->dev,"Valid unique IDs %x %x for Slave mfg %x part %d\n",id.unique_id, id2.unique_id,id.mfg_id, id.part_id);ignore_unique_id = false;} else {dev_err(bus->dev,"Invalid unique IDs %x %x for Slave mfg %x part %d\n",id.unique_id, id2.unique_id,id.mfg_id, id.part_id);return -ENODEV;}}if (ignore_unique_id)id.unique_id = SDW_IGNORED_UNIQUE_ID;/*
- don't error check for sdw_slave_add as we want to continue
- adding Slaves
-- 2.20.1