Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] iio: adc: ad4080: add support for AD4880 dual-channel ADC

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 05:16:47PM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> On 2/15/26 2:03 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 12:31:12PM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> >> On 2/14/26 12:11 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 04:08:52PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 14:50:23 +0200
> >>>> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 06:07:12PM +0200, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:

...

> >>>>> I believe there is a better approach, what you need is rather a flag
> >>>>> to SPI core to tell that this is the device with shared CS.
> >>>>
> >>>> Antoniu, this comment from Andy needs addressing before we move
> >>>> on. It seems fairly fundamental and I'm not seeing a reply to it on list.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not entirely sure what Andy is suggesting will work but this
> >>>> is perhaps a mismatch in really understanding what is going on here.
> >>>> Andy, how would a flag work given they seem to be separately addressable
> >>>> SPI buses. I think this isn't a shared SPI CS, but rather a device
> >>>> with two entirely separate SPI buses. I think the only reason
> >>>> we are bothering to implement it as a single device at all is the
> >>>> shared backend.
> >>>
> >>> My understanding that there are two devices that for whatever reason share
> >>
> >> It is the opposite. It is a _single_ device with _two_ CS lines.
> > 
> > Don't we have already support for that? This changes the picture even more towards
> > NAKing this. See below why.
> 
> Yes, spi_new_ancillary_device() was introduced exactly for this sort
> of thing, which is why I think it makes sense to use it.
> 
> >> adc@0 {
> >> 	reg = <0>, <1>;
> >> 	...
> >> };
> >>
> >>> the same CS line. Yes, I probably misread the idea behind, but I meant
> >>> some flag for SPI device that tells SPI core that the CS it wants is shared
> >>> (maybe a high bit in the cs field or so), then CS core won't complain on
> >>> validation about using the same cs number which is "already in use".
> >>
> >> There was one existing user in the kernel of spi_new_ancillary_device()
> >> that looked like this, so it seemed the right way to approach it. However,
> >> code was added later that caused the primary SPI device to "claim" both
> >> CS lines for itself and probably broke the one existing user of
> >> spi_new_ancillary_device() (hard to tell without hardware to test).
> >>
> >> The idea here was to unbreak that so we could use spi_new_ancillary_device()
> >> just as in the existing use case.
> >>
> >> The patch for that could have been a bit more strict to only allow the
> >> spi_new_ancillary_device() to take CS 1 and fail otherwise, but users
> >> are going to notice if it isn't working right anyway, so I didn't ask
> >> for more checking.
> > 
> >>>> There is an argument that maybe we should be looking at how
> >>>> to do data muxing backends to support the more general case of two
> >>>> separate chips feeding into a single buffer, but that's a complex
> >>>> beast and I'm not sure if it is something we actually need.
> >>
> >> I think it would actually be quite similar to what is done in this
> >> series.
> > 
> > TBH, the change sounds to me like a hack. It doesn't cover other potential ways
> > of the multi-cs devices come into play. Given that SPI core supports multi-cs
> > I don't see a good justification for this patch.
> > 
> > What did I miss?
> 
> As far as I can tell, other than the one existing user of
> spi_new_ancillary_device(), other SPI multi-CS stuff is only used
> by SPI flash memory devices, not general SPI devices. There code
> that is being modified here was introduced to support the SPI
> flash memory devices, so that use case is already covered by
> existing code.

Right. And obvious question why can't we apply the same approach
to any SPI device? Like extending existing code to cover generic
cases.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko