On 04/24/2016 02:14 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 20/04/16 14:15, Crestez Dan Leonard wrote: >> This can be used to distinguish mpu6500. This is a warning rather than >> an error because the differences are mostly irrelevant and it's nice to >> avoid breaking users with slightly incorrect ACPI/DT. >> >> Signed-off-by: Crestez Dan Leonard <leonard.cres...@intel.com> > Would we be better off fixing their configuration though by using the right > part > if we can identify it? So if wrong, maybe we should search the info table to > figure out what it is? I'm not certain on this though as then we are trying > to > deal with unknown future cases - maybe what you have here is the best balance.
I'm not sure about that. One issue is that 6000/6050/9150 have the same WHOAMI value and can't be distinguished this way. They also seem to identical interfaces. Models MPU6500 and MPU9250 report different WHOAMI values. Changing chip_type based on the WHOAMI would require some additional refactoring. Placing that in a separate patch might be worthwhile anyway. >> +#define INV_MPU6050_REG_WHOAMI 117 >> + >> +#define INV_MPU6000_WHOAMI_VALUE 0x68 >> +#define INV_MPU6050_WHOAMI_VALUE 0x68 >> +#define INV_MPU6500_WHOAMI_VALUE 0x70
