Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] iio: buffer: add support for multiple buffers

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 5/8/20 3:53 PM, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> [...]
> What I don't like, is that iio:device3 has iio:buffer3:0 (to 3).
> This is because the 'buffer->dev.parent = &indio_dev->dev'.
> But I do feel this is correct.
> So, now I don't know whether to leave it like that or symlink to shorter
> versions like 'iio:buffer3:Y' -> 'iio:device3/bufferY'.
> The reason for naming the IIO buffer devices to 'iio:bufferX:Y' is
> mostly to make the names unique. It would have looked weird to do
> '/dev/buffer1' if I would have named the buffer devices 'bufferX'.
>
> So, now I'm thinking of whether all this is acceptable.
> Or what is acceptable?
> Should I symlink 'iio:device3/iio:buffer3:0' -> 'iio:device3/buffer0'?
> What else should I consider moving forward?
> What means forward?
> Where did I leave my beer?

Looking at how the /dev/ devices are named I think we can provide a name 
that is different from the dev_name() of the device. Have a look at 
device_get_devnode() in drivers/base/core.c. We should be able to 
provide the name for the chardev through the devnode() callback.

While we are at this, do we want to move the new devices into an iio 
subfolder? So iio/buffer0:0 instead of iio:buffer0:0?