Re: [PATCH v6] iio: adc: Add support for TI ADC108S102 and ADC128S102

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2017-05-21 16:13, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 21/05/17 15:06, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On 21/05/17 13:44, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2017-05-21 14:18, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>> On 21/05/17 13:17, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>>> On 21/05/17 12:59, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017-05-21 12:47, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/05/17 16:28, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>>>>> This is an upstream port of an IIO driver for the TI ADC108S102 and
>>>>>>>> ADC128S102. The former can be found on the Intel Galileo Gen2
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> Siemens SIMATIC IOT2000. For those boards, ACPI-based
>>>>>>>> enumeration is
>>>>>>>> included.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Due to the lack of regulators under ACPI, we hard-code the voltage
>>>>>>>> provided to the VA pin of the ADC to 5 V, the value used on Galileo
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> IOT2000. For DT usage, the regulator "vref-supply" provides this
>>>>>>>> information. Note that DT usage has not been tested.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Original author: Bogdan Pricop <bogdan.pricop@emutex.com>
>>>>>>>> Ported from Intel Galileo Gen2 BSP to Intel Yocto kernel:
>>>>>>>> Todor Minchev <todor@minchev.co.uk>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>>>>>> Still an issue wrt to it being obviously correct in the ordering in
>>>>>>> probe
>>>>>>> and remove.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a reviewer I want to be able to run through each step in probe
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> compare with remove to ensure they occur in the opposite order and
>>>>>>> reverse all the steps in probe.  Where ever it deviates from that I
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> to think about it and we all know the last thing a reviewer with
>>>>>>> a big
>>>>>>> backlog of patches wants to do is to think hard ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyhow, I've fixed up and applied to the togreg branch of iio.git
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> pushed out as testing for the autobuilders to play with it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please check I haven't made a mess of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forgot to push? Not finding it in togreg, which is 5 days old.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As it says, pushed out as testing...  Togreg is non rebasing so only
>>>>> gets pushed out publicly once all the trivial stuff the autobuilders
>>>>> find has been sorted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depending on how busy I am it can be a few days before I get a chance
>>>>> to push out togreg, whereas testing goes every few patches when I'm
>>>>> merging stuff.
>>>> Mind you I hadn't pushed that for half an hour or so hence that might
>>>> have been out of date too ;)
>>>
>>> OK, now I see what went wrong: Please have a second look at commit
>>> 52d4de2441af... ;)
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>> Gah!  Thanks.  I knew I did that initially but thought I'd unwound the
>> mess.
>> Seems not - here goes again for trying not to be an idiot.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this mess out.
> Should now all be fixed up.   I pulled the messed up patch to the tip and
> split it up into the original two patches.  'looks' right now I think but
> if you wouldn't mind having a quick look that would be great.
> 

Looks and works fine!

Thanks,
Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux