Re: [PATCH v2] iio:frequency:adf4377: Fix duplicated soft reset mask

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 12:09:25 +0000
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:19:46 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 3:21 PM SeungJu Cheon <suunj1331@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > >
> > > The regmap_read_poll_timeout() uses ADF4377_0000_SOFT_RESET_R_MSK
> > > twice instead of checking both SOFT_RESET_MSK (bit 0) and
> > > SOFT_RESET_R_MSK (bit 7). This causes incomplete reset status check.    
> > 
> > an incomplete
> >   
> > > Fix by using both masks as done in regmap_update_bits() above.    
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > 
> > May I ask how you tested this? Logically from the code it sounds
> > correct, but I haven't read the datasheet yet, so I can't tell if this
> > is the expected value to read or not.
> > 
> >   
> > >         return regmap_read_poll_timeout(st->regmap, 0x0, read_val,
> > > -                                       !(read_val & (ADF4377_0000_SOFT_RESET_R_MSK |
> > > +                                       !(read_val & (ADF4377_0000_SOFT_RESET_MSK |
> > >                                         ADF4377_0000_SOFT_RESET_R_MSK)), 200, 200 * 100);    
> > 
> > Okay, I opened the datasheet, and the below is what I read there. The
> > code first sets the SOFT_RESET_R and SOFT_RESET bits to "1", and waits
> > for them to be cleared. But the Table 43 does not mention that
> > SOFT_RESET_R is auto cleaned, and actually I don't see with a brief
> > look what the "repeat of" term means.
> > 
> > And for normal operation they needs to be 0ed as per:
> >   "SOFT_RESET, SOFT_RESET_R, RST_SYS, and ADC_ST_CNV are the only
> > remaining RW bit fields not mentioned yet, and must also be set to
> > their POR state (see Table 34)."
> > 
> > With that said, I would wait for AD people to clarify the programming
> > workflow here.
> >   
> 
> Small kernel development process thing as well. Please don't send a v2 in reply to a v1.
> It can become very confusing if we end up with a larger number of versions.
> Much better to just post a new thread for each version, and include
> a link back to the lore archive of the previous version in your cover letter.
> 
> Also from a practical point of view, it ends up pages up in people's inboxes and
> so is is less likely to get reviewed!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jonathan
> 
ADI folk. This is waiting for one of you to take a look at the questions Andy raised.

Thanks!

Jonathan