On 28/03/16 10:20, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> No problem with the patch itself, but I'd like to get a better
>> understanding of the issue. Are we talking a weird hardware 'bug' that
>> occurs only in these particular circumstances? Can we pin down which of
>> the above conditions are necessary to make it not work?
>
> I have. I have the following patch in my tree
> (Giuseppe, tell me if I should send this as patch if you
> want to try it on your designs.):
>
> From 24fe4792c3bc92f587f44a5c54435be5745e424c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:21:01 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] iio: st_sensors: detect residue in channels
>
> Hack.
>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/iio/common/st_sensors/st_sensors_buffer.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iio/common/st_sensors/st_sensors_buffer.c
> b/drivers/iio/common/st_sensors/st_sensors_buffer.c
> index c55898543a47..71c079b50548 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/common/st_sensors/st_sensors_buffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/common/st_sensors/st_sensors_buffer.c
> @@ -83,6 +83,26 @@ irqreturn_t st_sensors_trigger_handler(int irq, void *p)
> iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, sdata->buffer_data,
> pf->timestamp);
>
> + if (sdata->sensor_settings->drdy_irq.addr_stat_drdy) {
> + u8 status;
> +
> + len = sdata->tf->read_byte(&sdata->tb, sdata->dev,
> + sdata->sensor_settings->drdy_irq.addr_stat_drdy,
> + &status);
> + if (len < 0)
> + dev_err(sdata->dev, "could not read channel status\n");
> +
> + /*
> + * If this was not caused by any channels on this sensor,
> + * return IRQ_NONE
> + */
> + if (status & (u8)indio_dev->active_scan_mask[0])
> + dev_err(sdata->dev,
> + "ERROR residue data status = %02x, scan_mask = %02x\n",
> + status,
> + (u8)indio_dev->active_scan_mask[0]);
> + }
> +
> st_sensors_get_buffer_element_error:
> iio_trigger_notify_done(indio_dev->trig);
>
> This triggers when I use active-low IRQs and open drain setting.
> The register contains 0x07 or 0xee indicating that the X axis status
> bit was cleared but not Y, Z.
>
>> I'd just like to know if this is a fix that needs to go upstream faster
>> than the open drain support or not.
>
> I cannot test active-high IRQs on the LIS331DL since it is wired
> up as it is (requireing active-low+open drain). I don't think it's an
> issue with that sensor in general but rather with the active-low+OD
> mode in general but admittedly it is a rough guess.
>
> It *might* be that LIS331DL needs this to even work properly :/
That was precisely what I was wondering!
Let's see if we can pin this down a bit further. More info would certainly
help anyone trying to use this with an older kernel.
Jonathan
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
