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

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

[SeungJu Cheon]

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.

Fix by using both masks as done in regmap_update_bits() above.

Signed-off-by: SeungJu Cheon <suunj1331@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
index 08833b7035e4..48aa4b015a14 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
@@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ static int adf4377_soft_reset(struct adf4377_state *st)
 		return ret;
 
 	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);
 }
 
-- 
2.52.0

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

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2025 at 09:36:09PM +0900, SeungJu Cheon 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.
> 
> Fix by using both masks as done in regmap_update_bits() above.

Shouldn't we have a Fixes tag here?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

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

[SeungJu Cheon]

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.

Fix by using both masks as done in regmap_update_bits() above.

Fixes: eda549e2e524 ("iio:frequency:adf4377: add support for ADF4377")
Signed-off-by: SeungJu Cheon <suunj1331@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
index 08833b7035e4..48aa4b015a14 100644
--- a/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
+++ b/drivers/iio/frequency/adf4377.c
@@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ static int adf4377_soft_reset(struct adf4377_state *st)
 		return ret;
 
 	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);
 }
 
-- 
2.52.0

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

[Andy Shevchenko]

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.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

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

[Jonathan Cameron]

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

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

[Jonathan Cameron]

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

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

[Miclaus, Antoniu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 11:44 AM
> To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>; Hennerich, Michael
> <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>; Sa, Nuno <Nuno.Sa@analog.com>
> Cc: SeungJu Cheon <suunj1331@gmail.com>; Miclaus, Antoniu
> <Antoniu.Miclaus@analog.com>; lars@metafoo.de;
> andriy.shevchenko@intel.com; David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>;
> andy@kernel.org; linux-iio@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iio:frequency:adf4377: Fix duplicated soft reset mask
> 
> [External]
> 
> 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.

Yep, it's a straightforward copy-paste typo - SOFT_RESET_R_MSK is OR'd with itself, so we're only
 checking BIT(7). Since we set both bits before polling, we should be waiting for both to clear.

Regards,
Antoniu

> Thanks!
> 
> Jonathan

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

[andriy.shevchenko]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:08:54AM +0000, Miclaus, Antoniu wrote:
> > From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
> > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 11:44 AM
> > 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:

...

> > > > 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!
> > >
> > ADI folk. This is waiting for one of you to take a look at the questions Andy
> > raised.
> 
> Yep, it's a straightforward copy-paste typo - SOFT_RESET_R_MSK is OR'd with
> itself, so we're only checking BIT(7). Since we set both bits before polling,
> we should be waiting for both to clear.

Can you clarify more on this, please? Datasheet is unclear about the second bit
to be self-cleared.

And are you going to fix documentation (Datasheet)?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko