..
+ if (reset_gpio) {
+ /*
+ * Deassert reset now that clock and power are active.
+ * Minimum reset pulsewidth is 2 clock cycles.
+ */
+ udelay(ADS1298_CLOCKS_TO_USECS(2));
This is sleeping context and you are calling unsleeping function. I haven't
checked the macro implementation and I have no idea what is the maximum it may
give, but making code robust just use fsleep() call.
+ gpiod_set_value_cansleep(reset_gpio, 0);
+ } else {
+ ret = ads1298_write_cmd(priv, ADS1298_CMD_RESET);
+ if (ret)
+ return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "RESET failed\n");
+ }
+ /* Wait 18 clock cycles for reset command to complete */
+ udelay(ADS1298_CLOCKS_TO_USECS(18));
Ditto.
..
If it's the only issue I think Jonathan can modify when applying
(no new patch version would be needed).
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:07:49 +0100
Mike Looijmans <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16-02-2024 16:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> ...
>
> + if (reset_gpio) {
> + /*
> + * Deassert reset now that clock and power are active.
> + * Minimum reset pulsewidth is 2 clock cycles.
> + */
> + udelay(ADS1298_CLOCKS_TO_USECS(2));
>
> This is sleeping context and you are calling unsleeping function. I haven't
> checked the macro implementation and I have no idea what is the maximum it may
> give, but making code robust just use fsleep() call.
>
> It'll actually delay for 1 us (the "clock" is ~2MHz). So fsleep will compile to udelay anyway, which is fine, fsleep might get smarter in future and this would then profit.
>
>
>
> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(reset_gpio, 0);
> + } else {
> + ret = ads1298_write_cmd(priv, ADS1298_CMD_RESET);
> + if (ret)
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "RESET failed\n");
> + }
> + /* Wait 18 clock cycles for reset command to complete */
> + udelay(ADS1298_CLOCKS_TO_USECS(18));
>
> Ditto.
>
> ...
>
>
> If it's the only issue I think Jonathan can modify when applying
> (no new patch version would be needed).
>
> That'd be nice.
ok. As this is still the top of my tree I'll just tweak it.
Does anyone else read fsleep as femtosecond sleep every time? :)
Maybe computers will go that fast one day.
Jonathan
>
>
> --
> Mike Looijmans
> System Expert
>
> TOPIC Embedded Products B.V.
> Materiaalweg 4, 5681 RJ Best
> The Netherlands
>
> T: +31 (0) 499 33 69 69
> E: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> W: http://www.topic.nl<http://www.topic.nl>
>
>
On 16-02-2024 18:19, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 17:07:49 +0100
> Mike Looijmans <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 16-02-2024 16:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> + if (reset_gpio) {
>> + /*
>> + * Deassert reset now that clock and power are active.
>> + * Minimum reset pulsewidth is 2 clock cycles.
>> + */
>> + udelay(ADS1298_CLOCKS_TO_USECS(2));
>>
>> This is sleeping context and you are calling unsleeping function. I haven't
>> checked the macro implementation and I have no idea what is the maximum it may
>> give, but making code robust just use fsleep() call.
>>
>> It'll actually delay for 1 us (the "clock" is ~2MHz). So fsleep will compile to udelay anyway, which is fine, fsleep might get smarter in future and this would then profit.
>>
>>
>>
>> + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(reset_gpio, 0);
>> + } else {
>> + ret = ads1298_write_cmd(priv, ADS1298_CMD_RESET);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "RESET failed\n");
>> + }
>> + /* Wait 18 clock cycles for reset command to complete */
>> + udelay(ADS1298_CLOCKS_TO_USECS(18));
>>
>> Ditto.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> If it's the only issue I think Jonathan can modify when applying
>> (no new patch version would be needed).
>>
>> That'd be nice.
> ok. As this is still the top of my tree I'll just tweak it.
>
> Does anyone else read fsleep as femtosecond sleep every time? :)
> Maybe computers will go that fast one day.
>
> Jonathan
Noticed this triggered a kernel test robot report. Sent a v6 that fixes
the bug.
Can also make it a separate patch if you prefer, in that case ignore v6.
--
Mike Looijmans
System Expert
TOPIC Embedded Products B.V.
Materiaalweg 4, 5681 RJ Best
The Netherlands
T: +31 (0) 499 33 69 69
E: [email protected]
W: http://www.topic.nl