On 22/08/16 18:19, Heiko Stuebner wrote:

Am Sonntag, 21. August 2016, 21:01:19 CEST schrieb Jonathan Cameron:

quoted

Something in here got it blocked by the lists. I'm guessing it
was the characters my email client didn't like so trying again
with them dropped.

Jonathan

On 21/08/16 20:11, Jonathan Cameron wrote:

quoted

On 15/08/16 19:10, Caesar Wang wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 27/07/16 15:24, Caesar Wang wrote:

quoted

SARADC controller needs to be reset before programming it, otherwise
it will not function properly.

Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <redacted>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>

Hi

Patch is fine (I'll fix up the wording issue) however...

I'm not clear on the severity of the issue. Is this something
we should be pushing for stable?

I think that should be pushing for stable, since the common isssue for
the ADC is initially enabled on loader, and only disabled after the
first read.

cat /sys/class/hwmon/hwmon1/device/temp1_input
cat: /sys/class/hwmon/hwmon1/device/temp1_input: Connection timed out

The kernel log shows:

[ 32.209451] read channel() error: -110
..

Also, for my experience. Some other reasons caused the adc (controller)
glitch for the kernel side.> 

Fine.  So now the only question is who is handling it. The
fix is useless (I think) without the dts changes to support it.
Normally we'd route the dts and driver changes separately as it
should not matter, but here I think I'd prefer it if the whole
thing went via rockchip -> arm-soc tree so it goes in together.

Hence (with wording fixed)

Acked-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>
Cc: <redacted>
(for the driver patch).

If people want me to take it via IIO then I'll need acks for
the dts changes with explicit agreement that they can be marked
for stable. Would image Heiko, these would come from you.

I don't know how the armsoc people feel about routing other subsystem changes 
through armsoc, but I think small dts changes coming through driver trees is 
the more common case, so personally I'd think patches 1,3 and 4 could go 
through the iio tree.

Patch 2 of course isn't material for stable, as it adds new functionality, so 
I'd pick that up directly, especially as we see numerous rk3399 changes, so 
that would be prone to conflict.

Absolutely.  This one applied to the fixes-togreg branch of iio.git

Thanks,

Jonathan

Heiko