On 13/01/23 22:41, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>>>> + if (is_dmic_dev && is_sdw_dev) {
>>>> + switch (acp_data->sdw_master_count) {
>>>> + case 1:
>>>> + acp_data->pdev_mask = ACP63_SDW_PDM_DEV_MASK;
>>>> + acp_data->pdev_count = ACP63_SDW0_PDM_MODE_DEVS;
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 2:
>>>> + acp_data->pdev_mask = ACP63_SDW_PDM_DEV_MASK;
>>>> + acp_data->pdev_count = ACP63_SDW0_SDW1_PDM_MODE_DEVS;
>>>> + break;
>>> so the cover letter is indeed wrong and confuses two controllers for two
>>> managers.
>> ACP IP has two independent manager instances driven by separate controller
>> each which are connected in different power domains.
>>
>> we should create two separate ACPI companion devices for separate
>> manager instance. Currently we have limitations with BIOS.
>> we are going with single ACPI companion device.
>> We will update the changes later.
> Humm, this is tricky. The BIOS interface isn't something that can be
> changed at will on the kernel side, you'd have to maintain two solutions
> with a means to detect which one to use.
>
> Or is this is a temporary issue on development devices, then that part
> should probably not be upstreamed.
It's a temporary issue on development devices.
We had discussion with Windows dev team and BIOS team.
They have agreed to modify ACPI companion device logic.
We will update the two companion devices logic for two manager
instances in V2 version.
