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

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 5/11/20 3:24 PM, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 13:03 +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > [External]
> >
> > On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 12:37 +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > > [External]
> > >
> > > On 5/11/20 12:33 PM, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 11:09 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > > > > [External]
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 9 May 2020 10:52:14 +0200
> > > > > Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> > > > > Possibly on the folder.  I can't for the life of me remember why I
> > > > > decided
> > > > > not to do that the first time around - I'll leave it at the
> > > > > mysterious "it may turn out to be harder than you'd think..."
> > > > > Hopefully not ;)
> > > > I was also thinking about the /dev/iio subfolder while doing this.
> > > > I can copy that from /dev/input
> > > > They seem to do it already.
> > > > I don't know how difficult it would be. But it looks like a good
> > > > precedent.
> > > All you have to do is return "iio/..." from the devnode() callback.
> > I admit I did not look closely into drivers/input/input.c before mentioning
> > this
> > as as good precedent.
> >
> > But, I looks like /dev/inpput is a class.
> > While IIO devices are a bus_type devices.
> > Should we start implementing an IIO class? or?
> What I should have highlighted [before] with this, is that there is no devnode()
> callback for the bus_type [type].
But there is one in device_type :)