Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] iio: adc: Add ti-ads1018 driver

[Kurt Borja]

On Mon Dec 1, 2025 at 11:07 AM -05, David Lechner wrote:

...

>>>> +	if (iio_device_claim_buffer_mode(indio_dev))
>>>> +		goto out_notify_done;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (iio_trigger_using_own(indio_dev)) {
>>>> +		disable_irq(ads1018->drdy_irq);
>>>> +		ret = ads1018_read_unlocked(ads1018, &scan.conv, true);
>>>> +		enable_irq(ads1018->drdy_irq);
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		ret = spi_read(ads1018->spi, ads1018->rx_buf, sizeof(ads1018->rx_buf));
>>>> +		scan.conv = ads1018->rx_buf[0];
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	iio_device_release_buffer_mode(indio_dev);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (ret)
>>>> +		goto out_notify_done;
>>>> +
>>>> +	iio_push_to_buffers_with_ts(indio_dev, &scan, sizeof(scan), pf->timestamp);
>>>> +
>>>> +out_notify_done:
>>>> +	iio_trigger_notify_done(ads1018->indio_trig);
>>>
>>> Jonathan et al., maybe we need an ACQUIRE() class for this? It will solve
>>> the conditional scoped guard case, no?
>
> No, ACQUIRE() is not scoped, just conditional. I don't think it
> will improve anything here.

Maybe I'm not understanding the problem fully?

I interpreted "ACQUIRE() class" as a general GUARD class, i.e.
	
	guard(iio_trigger_notify)(indio_dev->trig);

This way drivers may use other cleanup.h helpers cleaner, because of the
goto problem?

I do think it's a good idea, like a `defer` keyword. But it is a bit
unorthodox using guard for non locks.


-- 
 ~ Kurt