That's perfectly fine...
The short answer is that there is nothing wrong with this approach. It presumes, of course, that you have time to switch and do an ADC conversion (which at 200Hz) you do.
You might want a series current-limiting resistor in line with the gate to protect your MCU driver (if the total gate charge of the N-FET is in the tens of nC, didn't read the datasheet).
If you want a completely "digital" solution:
simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
The component choices are (CircuitLab defaults) approximates, a wide range of parts will work, but it's a balancing act between R3 and R4.
- You need to make the R3/R4 ratio big enough that V(R4) < M1's Vth
- You need to make the R3/R4 ratio small enough that Vsrc-V(R3) > MCU V_IH
...for SW1 "on", MCU Hi-Z
Tuning
Here's a specific configuration that should work (5V source):
Materials:
See "documents" at these links:
Targets:
Procedure:
Start with the (GPIO: Hi-Z; SW1: Closed) case:
- Vsrc -> R3 -> D3 -> R4 -> GND, must yield V(R4) < Vth,M1,min = 2V
- We need V(gpio) > V_IH = 2.6V
- This spread determines the minimum Vf,diode (Vfd) we need
Now, look at the (GPIO: Logic-1; SW1: Open) case:
- We need V(R4) > Vth,M1,min = 1.8V (ideally with some comfortable margin)
- This determines the upper-bound of the required Vfd
Now, look at the (GPIO: Logic-1; SW1: Closed) case:
- We need I(R3) < I(OH),max
- This determines the minimum size of R3 (go bigger for reliability)
Example:
- R3 = 15k
- D3 = 1.6V (forward) = approx 3x 1N4148 in series
- R4 = 10k
Control the FET/LED:
V(gpio) = 5V; V(g) = 3.4V
- PASS: 3.4V > 2V -- FET turns "on"
Read the state of an "on" switch:
V(gpio) = 2.9V; V(g) = 1.4V
- PASS: 1.4V < 1.8V -- FET turns "off"
- PASS: 2.9V > 2.6V -- MCU reads logic 1
Avoid damaging contention:
Switch is "on" AND MCU is driving the GPIO "low"
Power dissipation in the FET
The issue of power dissipation in the FET has been raised by a few commenters. It isn't a problem in this circuit due to the highly non-linear behavior of the LED.
Let's ignore the LED to bound the problem, by considering a worst-case impossible D4 with I(D4) = 20mA but Vled = 0 and R5 = 0 (impossible!). Now all of the power dissipation happens in the FET.
Under these conditions, the power dissipation in the FET can be maximally 100mW or ~1/5 of the maximum tolerable power of the suggested part. So we're safe.
However, you won't see dissipation near that level for any appreciable length of time. The transition time from R4 = 10k is approximately (RQV) = 10k * 1.1n * 3.4 = 37uS overall, but since we only need to move from 3.4V to below 1.8V we can finish in less than half that time.
At 200Hz, that translates into a mere 0.75% to 1.5% duty-cycle or less than 1mW in aggregate.
...and remember we ignored the real power consumers in the path -- the LED and current-limiting resistor (R5). In practice, it is impossible to deliver Vds = 5V to the FET, while Iled = 20mA, and the power dissipation in the FET will be negligible.
Best Answer
There is a battle between the LM358 and the MCU pin so if the LM358 wins and it wants to output a fairly low voltage then the LED won't light up no matter how hard you try. I think a possible solution is to put a resistor (maybe 470 ohms) in series with the LM358 output. This will allow PA0 to win every time but the problem arises when the port is being used as an analogue input - will the LED and resistor affect the analogue voltage?
I'm not sure what voltage range you are using for your analogue input but if it's 1V maximum then you should be OK. Maybe OK even at 2V but above two volts the LM358 will be trying to drive the LED and losing voltage thru the 470 ohms I recommended you put in series originally.
If the Vmax for the ADC is less than 2V it should be OK and also add a 10nF cap down to ground on the input to reduce impedance increases from the 470 ohm resistor.