[PATCH] iio: ad_sigma_delta: Handle CS assertion as intended in ad_sd_read_reg_raw()

[PATCH] iio: ad_sigma_delta: Handle CS assertion as intended in ad_sd_read_reg_raw()

[Uwe Kleine-König]

When struct ad_sigma_delta::keep_cs_asserted was introduced only
register writing was adapted to honor this new flag. Also respect it
when reading a register.

Fixes: df1d80aee963 ("iio: ad_sigma_delta: Properly handle SPI bus locking vs CS assertion")
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com>
---
Hello,

I didn't do extensive tests with that commit, but while working on
making the ad_sigma_delta stuff more robust I noticed this
inconsistency.

Review and testing welcome as I only have a single machine with a single
ADC that is using this code.

Best regards
Uwe

 drivers/iio/adc/ad_sigma_delta.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ad_sigma_delta.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ad_sigma_delta.c
index 2f3b61765055..4b81da8d3cf2 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/adc/ad_sigma_delta.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ad_sigma_delta.c
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ static int ad_sd_read_reg_raw(struct ad_sigma_delta *sigma_delta,
 		}, {
 			.rx_buf = val,
 			.len = size,
-			.cs_change = sigma_delta->bus_locked,
+			.cs_change = sigma_delta->keep_cs_asserted,
 		},
 	};
 	struct spi_message m;

base-commit: 414c97c966b69e4a6ea7b32970fa166b2f9b9ef0
-- 
2.45.2

Re: [PATCH] iio: ad_sigma_delta: Handle CS assertion as intended in ad_sd_read_reg_raw()

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 14:09:45 -0500
Trevor Gamblin <tgamblin@baylibre.com> wrote:

> On 2024-11-19 13:36, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > When struct ad_sigma_delta::keep_cs_asserted was introduced only
> > register writing was adapted to honor this new flag. Also respect it
> > when reading a register.
> >
> > Fixes: df1d80aee963 ("iio: ad_sigma_delta: Properly handle SPI bus locking vs CS assertion")
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König<u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com>  
> Reviewed-by: Trevor Gamblin <tgamblin@baylibre.com>

Hi Uwe,

Thanks for all these cleanups.  Trivial request for future though.
If like this time the maintainer is being slow / busy and take a while
to come back so you roll up multiple fixes into a new series that's fine.
However, please just drop a quick reply on the original threads to make
it easier to notice that! Only needed if all the feedback like here has
been positive and the patch might get picked up directly from the wrong
version.

Thanks,

Jonathan