Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:41:30 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] iio: pressure: dps310: Reset chip if MEAS_CFG is corrupt | From | Eddie James <> |
| |
On 8/20/22 07:02, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 23:16:55 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 5:57 PM Eddie James <eajames@linux.ibm.com> wrote: >>> Corruption of the MEAS_CFG register has been observed soon after >>> system boot. In order to recover this scenario, check MEAS_CFG if >>> measurement isn't ready, and if it's incorrect, reset the DPS310 >>> and execute the startup procedure. >> ... >> >>> + * Called with lock held. Returns a negative value on error, a positive value >>> + * when the device is not ready, and zero when the device is ready. >> Can we have >> >> #define DPS310_DEVICE_NOT_READY 1 >> >> (or anonymous enum) and return it instead of abstract 1 or any other >> positive number? > Perhaps make it even clearer by returning the need to wait via another parameter > rather than this being (probably) the only place in driver with a postive rc. > > bool reset_done; > > rc = dps310_check_reset_meas_cfg(data, DPS310_TMP_RDY, &reset_done); > > if (reset_done) { > }
Thanks for the feedback.
Unfortunately our issue is still presenting itself even with a correct MEAS_CFG register. The sensor ready bit never gets set. So I'm going to rework this patch to reset the device after a timeout.
Thanks,
Eddie
> >> ... >> >>> + rc = dps310_check_reset_meas_cfg(data, DPS310_TMP_RDY); >>> if (rc < 0) >>> goto done; >>> >>> + if (rc > 0) { >>> + rate = dps310_get_temp_samp_freq(data); >>> + timeout = DPS310_POLL_TIMEOUT_US(rate); >>> + >>> + /* >>> + * Poll for sensor readiness; base the timeout upon the sample >>> + * rate. >>> + */ >>> + rc = regmap_read_poll_timeout(data->regmap, DPS310_MEAS_CFG, >>> + ready, ready & DPS310_TMP_RDY, >>> + DPS310_POLL_SLEEP_US(timeout), >>> + timeout); >>> + if (rc) >>> + goto done; >>> + } >> But have you tried to make a helper that takes a pointer to the >> respective function? >>
| |