[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMknhBFE49iGkZyP4rdqAmJwY5KnJ0X9UAPC54=BdQFfNuA+kg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:50:42 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Axel Haslam <ahaslam@...libre.com>,
Philip Molloy <pmolloy@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 19/19] staging: iio: resolver: ad2s1210: add triggered
buffer support
On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 1:17 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 09:44:00 -0500
> David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
>
...
> > + /* REVIST: we can read 3 bytes here and also get fault flags */
>
> Given we have fault detection outputs, does it make sense to do so?
> Or should we just rely on those triggering an interrupt?
>
> > + ret = spi_read(st->sdev, st->rx, 2);
>
I'm thinking the former would be better, but I have a pending inquiry with ADI
to get more info on this since the fault pins and/or fault registers
don't seem to
be working quite like the datasheet says they should (I am seeing fault bits set
in the register without the fault pins being asserted).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists