On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 08:33:09AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > On 17.01.2025 18:28, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 05:05:42PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > Does it fail in the same way? > > Yes, the hw revision is reported as zero in this case: LT9611 revision: > 0x00.00.00 Hmm... This is very interesting! It means that the page selector is a bit magical there. Dmitry, can you chime in and perhaps shed some light on this? > >> Does it mean that there is really a bug in the driver? > > Without looking at the datasheet it's hard to say. At least what I found so far > > is one page of the I²C traffic dump on Windows as an example how to use their > > evaluation board and software, but it doesn't unveil the bigger picture. At > > least what I think is going on here is that the programming is not so easy as > > just paging. Something is more complicated there. > > > > But at least (and as Mark said) the most of the regmap based drivers got > > the ranges wrong (so, at least there is one bug in the driver). > > I can do more experiments if this helps. Do you need a dump of all > regmap accesses or i2c traffic from this driver? It would be helpful! Traces from the failed and non-failed cases till the firmware revision and chip ID reading would be enough to start with. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
