On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:36:10 -0700
Justin Weiss <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Adds support for the Bosch BMI260 6-axis IMU to the Bosch BMI270
> driver. Setup and operation is nearly identical to the Bosch BMI270,
> but has a different chip ID and requires different firmware.
>
> Firmware is requested and loaded from userspace.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Weiss <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Trivial comments inline and a discussion on whether my earlier
don't use an array comment makes sense in this particular case.
Jonathan
> ---
> drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270.h | 1 +
> drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270_core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270_i2c.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270_spi.c | 8 ++++++++
> 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270.h b/drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270.h
> index 2e8d85a4e419..51e374fd4290 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270.h
> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ struct bmi270_data {
> };
>
> enum bmi270_device_type {
> + BMI260,
> BMI270,
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270_core.c b/drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270_core.c
> index 799df78ec862..b30201dc4e22 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/bmi270/bmi270_core.c
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
> #include "bmi270.h"
>
> #define BMI270_CHIP_ID_REG 0x00
> +#define BMI160_CHIP_ID_VAL 0xD1
This one looks like a cut and paste error.
> +#define BMI260_CHIP_ID_VAL 0x27
> #define BMI270_CHIP_ID_VAL 0x24
> #define BMI270_CHIP_ID_MSK GENMASK(7, 0)
>
> @@ -55,6 +57,7 @@
> #define BMI270_PWR_CTRL_ACCEL_EN_MSK BIT(2)
> #define BMI270_PWR_CTRL_TEMP_EN_MSK BIT(3)
>
> +#define BMI260_INIT_DATA_FILE "bmi260-init-data.fw"
> #define BMI270_INIT_DATA_FILE "bmi270-init-data.fw"
>
> enum bmi270_scan {
> @@ -67,6 +70,11 @@ enum bmi270_scan {
> };
>
> const struct bmi270_chip_info bmi270_chip_info[] = {
> + [BMI260] = {
> + .name = "bmi260",
> + .chip_id = BMI260_CHIP_ID_VAL,
> + .fw_name = BMI260_INIT_DATA_FILE,
> + },
> [BMI270] = {
> .name = "bmi270",
> .chip_id = BMI270_CHIP_ID_VAL,
> @@ -163,8 +171,21 @@ static int bmi270_validate_chip_id(struct bmi270_data *bmi270_device)
> if (ret)
> return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Failed to read chip id");
>
> - if (chip_id != BMI270_CHIP_ID_VAL)
> - dev_info(dev, "Unknown chip id 0x%x", chip_id);
> + /*
> + * Some manufacturers use "BMI0160" for both the BMI160 and
> + * BMI260. If the device is actually a BMI160, the bmi160
> + * driver should handle it and this driver should not.
> + */
> + if (chip_id == BMI160_CHIP_ID_VAL)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + if (chip_id != bmi270_device->chip_info->chip_id)
> + dev_info(dev, "Unexpected chip id 0x%x", chip_id);
> +
> + if (chip_id == BMI260_CHIP_ID_VAL)
Ah. My argument on separate IDs means you'd have to do it this way whereas
I was thinking maybe a loop would be a better idea. Ah well if we
get a lot of supported chips, then we can rethink how to handle this.
For now what you have here is fine and should deal with lack of appropriate
ACPI ID mess.
> + bmi270_device->chip_info = &bmi270_chip_info[BMI260];
> + else if (chip_id == BMI270_CHIP_ID_VAL)
> + bmi270_device->chip_info = &bmi270_chip_info[BMI270];
>
> return 0;
> }
