Re: [PATCH v3] iio: imu: bmi270: Match PNP ID found on newer GPD firmware

[Cryolitia PukNgae]

On 21/08/2025 15.36, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 9:17 AM Cryolitia PukNgae via B4 Relay
> <devnull+cryolitia.uniontech.com@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Cryolitia PukNgae <cryolitia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > GPD devices originally used BMI160 sensors with the "BMI0160" PNP ID.
> > When they switched to BMI260 sensors in newer hardware, they reused
> > the existing Windows driver which accepts both "BMI0160" and "BMI0260"
> > IDs. Consequently, they kept "BMI0160" in DSDT tables for new BMI260
> > devices, causing driver mismatches in Linux.
> >
> > 1. GPD updated BIOS v0.40+[1] for newer devices to report "BMI0260" for
> > BMI260 sensors to avoid loading bmi160 driver on Linux. While this
> the bmi160 driver
>
> > isn't Bosch's VID;
> > 2. Bosch's official Windows driver uses "BMI0260" as a compatible ID
> > 3. We're seeing real devices shipping with "BMI0260" in DSDT
> >
> > The DSDT excerpt of GPD G1619-04 with BIOS v0.40:
> >
> > Scope (_SB.I2CC)
> > {
> >      Device (BMA2)
> >      {
> >          Name (_ADR, Zero)  // _ADR: Address
> >          Name (_HID, "BMI0260")  // _HID: Hardware ID
> >          Name (_CID, "BMI0260")  // _CID: Compatible ID
> >          Name (_DDN, "Accelerometer")  // _DDN: DOS Device Name
> >          Name (_UID, One)  // _UID: Unique ID
> >          Method (_CRS, 0, NotSerialized)  // _CRS: Current Resource Settings
> >          {
> >              Name (RBUF, ResourceTemplate ()
> >              {
> >                  I2cSerialBusV2 (0x0069, ControllerInitiated, 0x00061A80,
> >                      AddressingMode7Bit, "\\_SB.I2CC",
> >                      0x00, ResourceConsumer, , Exclusive,
> >                      )
> >              })
> >              Return (RBUF) /* \_SB_.I2CC.BMA2._CRS.RBUF */
> >          }
> >          # omit some noise
> >      }
> > }
> >
> > Link: http://download.softwincn.com/WIN%20Max%202024/Max2-7840-BIOS-V0.41.zip #1
> This blank line is not supposed to be here (the tag block is
> considered as the last lines in the commit message without blank
> lines, like a text paragraph).
>
> > Signed-off-by: Cryolitia PukNgae <cryolitia@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ...
>
> No need to resend for these nit-picks, I hope Jonathan will tweak them
> whilst applying.
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Oops, I edited it without seeing this line before sending it out. I hope 
it won't cause too much bother. thx for your review.