Re: [PATCH v2] iio: accel: bmc150: Check for a second ACPI device for BOSC0200

From: Steven Presser <steve@pressers.name>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
	Jeremy Cline <jeremy@jcline.org>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk>,
	Lars Kellogg-Stedman <lars@oddbit.com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>,
	linux-iio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio: accel: bmc150: Check for a second ACPI device for BOSC0200
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 12:58:11 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9ee7da52-d86a-7784-8c00-6e5b4ae3ed96@pressers.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VeVuS51Z7U2P+t3YnfitUtVVAa_8oSbnXCHTY7rqrJUEQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2581 bytes --]

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@pressers.name> wrote:
>> On 01/30/2018 02:05 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 8:34 PM, Steven Presser <steve@pressers.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.
>

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4370 bytes --]