Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ti-ads7950: inconsistency with spi msg
To:     justinpopo6@gmail.com, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     jic23@kernel.org, knaack.h@gmx.de, lars@metafoo.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1548381414-20561-1-git-send-email-justinpopo6@gmail.com>
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ac0a8ff6-92f5-09ef-932b-aba6378f1f47@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:30:30 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1548381414-20561-1-git-send-email-justinpopo6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Hi Justin,

On 1/24/19 5:56 PM, justinpopo6@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
> 
> To read a channel we require 3 cycles to send, process, and receive
> the data. The transfer buffer for the third transaction is left blank.
> This leaves it up to the SPI driver to decide what to do.
> 
> In one particular case, if the tx buffer is not set the spi driver
> sets it to 0xff. This puts the ADC in a alarm programming state,
> therefore the following read to a channel becomes erroneous.
> 
> Instead of leaving us to the mercy of the SPI driver, we send the
> ADC cmd on the third transaction to prevent inconsistent behavior.

Do you think this warrants a Fixes: tag?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
> index 0ad6359..5453e10 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads7950.c
> @@ -422,6 +422,7 @@ static int ti_ads7950_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>  	st->scan_single_xfer[1].tx_buf = &st->single_tx;
>  	st->scan_single_xfer[1].len = 2;
>  	st->scan_single_xfer[1].cs_change = 1;
> +	st->scan_single_xfer[2].rx_buf = &st->single_tx;

Should this be st->scan_single_xfer[2].tx_buf?

>  	st->scan_single_xfer[2].rx_buf = &st->single_rx;
>  	st->scan_single_xfer[2].len = 2;
>  
> 

-- 
Florian