[PATCH 01/19] ASoC: amd: ps: create platform devices based on acp config
Pierre-Louis Bossart
pierre-louis.bossart at linux.intel.com
Mon Feb 6 15:50:09 CET 2023
>>>>>>> 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.
So here you're reporting that the issue is that all devices use link0 ...
>>>>>> 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
... but here you have two different link numbers.
I interpret this as SLV0 on link0 and SLV1 on link1.
So what's the issue?
More information about the Alsa-devel
mailing list