[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DEESOSIR28AI.2YMRBJ17VCQHG@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 19:25:41 -0500
From: "Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@...il.com>
To: "David Lechner" <dlechner@...libre.com>, "Kurt Borja"
<kuurtb@...il.com>, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org>, "Jonathan
Cameron" <jic23@...nel.org>, "Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>, "Krzysztof
Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"Tobias Sperling" <tobias.sperling@...ting.com>
Cc: Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>, "Andy Shevchenko"
<andy@...nel.org>, <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Jonathan
Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: iio: adc: Add TI ADS1018/ADS1118
On Fri Nov 21, 2025 at 5:40 PM -05, David Lechner wrote:
> On 11/21/25 2:56 PM, Kurt Borja wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On Fri Nov 21, 2025 at 2:10 PM -05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 21/11/2025 18:16, Kurt Borja wrote:
>>>> Add documentation for Texas Instruments ADS1018 and ADS1118
>>>> analog-to-digital converters.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@...il.com>
>>>
>>> You did not test it before sending, so no full review but few nits to
>>> save you one round of reviews:
>>
>> My bad! I will fix the errors. Thanks!
>>
>
> ...
>
>>>> + interrupts:
>>>> + description: DOUT/DRDY (Data Out/Data Ready) line.
>>>> + maxitems: 1
>>>> +
>>>> + drdy-gpios:
>>>> + description:
>>>> + Extra GPIO line connected to DOUT/DRDY (Data Out/Data Ready). This allows
>>>> + distinguishing between latched and real DRDY IRQs.
>>>
>>> I have feeling that you miss proper handling of IRQs (e.g. active level)
>>> on your board.
>>
>> Can you elaborate? Should I specify active level here?
>>
>>>
> The problem is not about the levels. It is rather that the behavior of the
> interrupt when disabled/masked is different on different interrupt controllers.
>
> On some controllers, if an event happens while disabled/masked, it "remembers"
> that and will trigger the interrupt as soon as it is enabled even if the
> condition doesn't exist anymore. Not a great hardware design IMHO, but there
> is real hardware that does this.
I can attest to that. My hardware (RPI 5) does this haha.
>
> I think a better wording would be to leave out "latched" and say that
> it is needed to be able to distinguish between an interrupt triggered
> by the DRDY signal vs. an interrupt triggered by SPI data.
I'll take this wording, thanks.
--
~ Kurt
Powered by blists - more mailing lists