ADC: EOCS values in EOC description appears to be wrong

[waclawek.jan]

This is both in RM0038 and RM0090 ADC chapter: the description of EOC status bit says, it indicates end of conversion (if EOCS=0) or end of sequence (if EOCS=1). However, in description of EOCS bit in CR2, as well as in numerous places in the narrative, EOCS polarity is indicated in exactly the opposite way, i.e. that it makes EOC to indicate end of individual conversions if it is set to 1 and end of sequence if it is 0.

Can ST please clarify/fix.

Thanks,

JW

@Imen DAHMEN​ 

[Imen.D]

Hello @Community member​ 

Happy new year :)

Sorry for the delayed reply on this.

I did not notice a discrepancy.

Can you show extracts from the RM ?

  

 

[waclawek.jan]

Hi Imen,

Sorry for not being specific enough. This is the one description which contradicts all others:

JW

PS. Happy new year to you, too!

@Imen DAHMEN​ 

[Imen.D]

Thanks @Community member​ for this clarification.

You are right, there is contradiction here.

It seems that this description (EOC description) is wrong and all the others are good:

EOCS = 0 for a sequence of conversions, EOCS = 1 for only one conversion.

I am checking this internally and I will come back to you with confirmation about the corrective action we will take.

Imen

[TLin.5]

Here we are two years later, and I find this after having the same confusion...
And even though there was a new revision of the document just days ago, it still implies that EOC is 0 until the full sequence is complete if EOCS is 1.

[waclawek.jan]

Hi @Imen.D ,

Can this please be checked?

Thanks,

JW

[Imen.D]

Hello @TLin.5 , @waclawek.jan 

Thank you for rising this up.

I've added this case to the errata documentation list (with internal ticket number 173754).

[waclawek.jan]

Thanks, @Imen.D .

JW

[dirkdokter]

Hi! 

This was still not fixed in revision 21 (June 2024) of RM0090. Is it correct that this issue is still pending?

Thanks!