Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-68998-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240208172459.280189-1-alisa.roman@analog.com>
 <20240208172459.280189-6-alisa.roman@analog.com> <CAMknhBHU6k8J_PLCmGYF48S1q3uXByiCwzcd+B3q3Cd-02CUow@mail.gmail.com>
 <84546728-f0cb-4b38-a71c-e053b9b9278e@gmail.com> <CAMknhBFp-4s+-D8kD9rh0-OCc3gBs3hFX1EZ9ZmOifQOyGgUug@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240216142158.30e96c53@jic23-huawei>
In-Reply-To: <20240216142158.30e96c53@jic23-huawei>
From: David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 10:57:33 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMknhBEtLR1QNEv6HhcW35jiGEkx=srzy41NXt8bJ=gokzoemw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] iio: adc: ad7192: Add AD7194 support
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: Alisa-Dariana Roman <alisadariana@gmail.com>, alexandru.tachici@analog.com, 
	alisa.roman@analog.com, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org, 
	lars@metafoo.de, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	michael.hennerich@analog.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, 
	Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@analog.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 8:22=E2=80=AFAM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>=
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 11:13:19 -0600
> David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.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 explic=
it
> 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 an=
d
> channel AINCOM.
>
> Note though that this mode is described a pseudo differential which norma=
lly
> 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.