From: Stepan Ionichev <sozdayvek@gmail.com>
To: Michael.Hennerich@analog.com, nuno.sa@analog.com
Cc: lars@metafoo.de, jic23@kernel.org, dlechner@baylibre.com,
andy@kernel.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sozdayvek@gmail.com
Subject: ad7768-1: GPIO reset path delays do not match the datasheet
Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 20:00:42 +0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260513150042.10939-1-sozdayvek@gmail.com> (raw)
Hi all,
Reading drivers/iio/adc/ad7768-1.c I noticed the GPIO reset path
uses two bare fsleep() calls that seem to disagree with the AD7768-1
datasheet (Rev. B). I do not have AD7768-1 hardware to test this,
so I am reporting it rather than sending a patch -- maybe someone
with a board can verify and fix.
Code (drivers/iio/adc/ad7768-1.c, around lines 1249-1252):
if (st->gpio_reset) {
fsleep(10);
gpiod_set_value_cansleep(st->gpio_reset, 0);
fsleep(200);
}
Compared with the datasheet (AD7768-1 Rev. B, page 6, Table 1
"Specifications", ADC RESET section):
Reset Low Pulse Width minimum 100 us
ADC Start-Up Time After Reset 17 ms
(Reset rising edge to first DRDY,
PIN mode, decimate by 8)
So the in-tree code:
- holds the RESET pin low for ~10 us, where the datasheet
requires a minimum of 100 us;
- waits ~200 us after deasserting RESET before issuing SPI
traffic / set_mode, where the datasheet specifies 17 ms from
the reset rising edge to the first DRDY.
The neighbouring SPI-reset branch already cites the datasheet
(page 70), which is why this jumped out.
If anyone with an AD7768-1 board can confirm whether the chip
actually needs the datasheet-spec timing (or whether something
else makes the shorter waits fine in practice), this looks worth
a follow-up patch -- something like:
if (st->gpio_reset) {
/* RESET low pulse width: datasheet Rev. B, page 6,
* Table 1, min 100 us. */
fsleep(100);
gpiod_set_value_cansleep(st->gpio_reset, 0);
/* ADC start-up time after reset: datasheet Rev. B,
* page 6, Table 1, 17 ms (reset rising edge to first
* DRDY, PIN mode, decimate by 8). */
msleep(17);
}
I am happy to send the patch myself if someone with hardware
confirms it does not regress -- I would rather not submit an
untested timing change blind.
Stepan
next reply other threads:[~2026-05-13 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-13 15:00 Stepan Ionichev [this message]
2026-05-13 20:37 ` ad7768-1: GPIO reset path delays do not match the datasheet Andy Shevchenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260513150042.10939-1-sozdayvek@gmail.com \
--to=sozdayvek@gmail.com \
--cc=Michael.Hennerich@analog.com \
--cc=andy@kernel.org \
--cc=dlechner@baylibre.com \
--cc=jic23@kernel.org \
--cc=lars@metafoo.de \
--cc=linux-iio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox