Hi Cedric, I would agree that Emmanuel has the better version for ADC128D818 and we should go ahead with that one. Will not push my version anymore so it should not appear in the next patchset..
I did find some time to test his version on anacapa qemu today and also tested it from the hmp side to modify the properties. Overall I could not find any functional gaps and the tests are looking quite good too. Alexander Am Sa., 13. Juni 2026 um 19:07 Uhr schrieb Cédric Le Goater <[email protected]>: > On 6/12/26 18:46, Emmanuel Blot wrote: > > This is a 12-bit, 8-channel ADC I2C device, which is used on several > > OpenBMC platforms. > > > > QOM properties can be used to change input ADC values and external VREF > at > > run time. > > > > Add it to AST2600-based Anacapa machine, along with some functional tests > > that use QOM properties to inject voltage values into analog inputs. > > > > Datasheet: https://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/ADC128D818 > > > > Signed-off-by: Emmanuel Blot <[email protected]> > > --- > > Emmanuel Blot (4): > > hw/sensor: adc128d818: add 12-bit 8-channel ADC device > > tests/qtest: adc128d818: add test suite > > hw/arm: anacapa: add ADC128D818 devices > > test/functional: anacapa: test ADC128D818 > > > > hw/arm/Kconfig | 1 + > > hw/arm/aspeed_ast2600_anacapa.c | 19 +- > > hw/sensor/Kconfig | 4 + > > hw/sensor/adc128d818.c | 703 > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > > hw/sensor/meson.build | 1 + > > hw/sensor/trace-events | 8 + > > include/hw/sensor/adc128d818.h | 12 + > > tests/functional/arm/test_aspeed_anacapa.py | 92 ++- > > tests/qtest/adc128d818-test.c | 855 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > tests/qtest/meson.build | 1 + > > 10 files changed, 1688 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > --- > > base-commit: 193963218accbcf65f28ab1efa773ac6d1cc634c > > change-id: 20260612-i2c-adc128d818-anacapa-13c63e97fbd0 > > > > Best regards, > > -- > > Emmanuel Blot <[email protected]> > Alexander, > > This proposal offers significant advantages over your v6. > > - instead of adc128d818_init_with_values, it uses QOM properties for > run time values. > - reset is better > - unit tests > > This implementation seems a better foundation. If you agree, could > you please take some time to review it ? Given your expertise, you > seem to be the best person for it. > > > Thanks, > > C. > >
