Re: [PATCH v8 3/3] iio: adc: ti-ads1100: Add ti-ads1110 support to ti-ads1100 driver

[Jakub Szczudło]

sob., 18 lip 2026 o 03:02 Jonathan Cameron
<jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
>
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2026 20:50:33 +0200
> Jakub Szczudlo <jakubszczudlo40@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Add ADS1110 support that have faster datarate than ADS1100, it also uses
> > internal voltage reference of 2.048V for measurement.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Szczudlo <jakubszczudlo40@xxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Jakub,
>
> Seems some stuff in here should be in patch 1.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads1100.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads1100.c
> > index 363f790ca5d5..19533667e6cd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads1100.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ti-ads1100.c
>
> ...
>
>
> > @@ -139,14 +177,16 @@ static int ads1100_new_data_is_ready(struct ads1100_data *data)
> >               return ret;
> >       }
> >
> > -     return FIELD_GET(ADS1100_CFG_ST_BSY, buffer[2]) ? 0 : 1;
> > +     return FIELD_GET(ADS1100_CFG_ST_BSY, buffer[2]);
>
> This change and the use below seem odd to be in this patch. I guess
> they should be back in patch 1.
>
> >  }
> >
> >  static int ads1100_poll_data_ready(struct ads1100_data *data)
> >  {
> > -     int data_rate_Hz = ads1100_data_rate[FIELD_GET(ADS1100_DR_MASK, data->config)];
> > +     int data_rate_index = FIELD_GET(ADS1100_DR_MASK, data->config);
> > +     int data_rate_Hz = data->chip_info->available_data_rate_hz[data_rate_index];
> >       /* To be sure we wait 5 times more than data rate */
> > -     unsigned long wait_time_us = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(USEC_PER_SEC, 2 * data_rate_Hz);
> > +     unsigned long period_us = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(USEC_PER_SEC, data_rate_Hz);
> > +     unsigned long wait_time_us = 5UL * period_us;
> >       int data_ready;
> >       u8 buffer[3];
> >       int ret;
> > @@ -159,7 +199,7 @@ static int ads1100_poll_data_ready(struct ads1100_data *data)
> >       }
> >
> >       ret = readx_poll_timeout(ads1100_new_data_is_ready, data,
> > -                              data_ready, data_ready != 0,
> > +                              data_ready, data_ready == 0,
> see above. Seems to be in wrong patch.
> >                                wait_time_us, ADS1100_MAX_DRDY_TIMEOUT_US);
>
> Sashiko points out that the polling period is very long.  Was this meant to be period_us?
>
> >       if (data_ready < 0)
> >               return data_ready;
>

Hi Jonathan,
can you check out version 9?
I made some improvements and tested all changes on the newest kernel.
It should be ok now.

Best regards