Re: [PATCH 01/19] ASoC: amd: ps: create platform devices based on acp config

[Pierre-Louis Bossart]

>>>>>>> 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?