linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] iio: adc: ad7192: Add AD7194 support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMknhBEtLR1QNEv6HhcW35jiGEkx=srzy41NXt8bJ=gokzoemw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 10:57:33 -0600
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: Alisa-Dariana Roman <alisadariana@...il.com>, alexandru.tachici@...log.com, 
	alisa.roman@...log.com, conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org, 
	lars@...afoo.de, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	michael.hennerich@...log.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, 
	Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] iio: adc: ad7192: Add AD7194 support

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 8:22 AM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:13:19 -0600
> David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
>

..

> >
> > Tables 22, 23 and 24 in the AD7194 datasheet show that this chip is
> > much more configurable than AD7192 when it comes to assigning
> > channels. There are basically no restrictions on which inputs can be
> > used together. So I am still confident that my suggestion is the way
> > to go for AD7194. (Although I didn't actually try it on hardware, so
> > can't be 100% confident. But at least 90% confident :-p)
>
> You would have to define a channel number for aincom.  There is an explicit
> example in the datasheet of it being at 2.5V using a reference supply.
>
> I wonder what expectation here is.  Allways a reference regulator on that pin, or
> an actually varying input? Maybe in long term we want to support both
> options - so if aincom-supply is provided these are single ended with
> an offset, but if not they are differential channels between channel X and
> channel AINCOM.
>
> Note though that this mode is described a pseudo differential which normally
> means a fixed voltage on the negative.
>
> So gut feeling from me is treat them as single ended and add an
> aincom-supply + the offsets that result if that is provided in DT and
> voltage from it is non 0.

Calling AINCOM a supply doesn't sound right to me since usually this
signal is coming somewhere external, i.e. you have a twisted pair
connected to AIN1 and AINCOM going to some signal source that may be
hot-pluggable and not known at compile time. As an example, if AINCOM
was modeled as a supply, then we would have to change the device tree
every time we changed the voltage offset on the signal generator while
we are testing using an evaluation board.