Re: [PATCH RFC 2/6] iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() naming

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2025 12:35:38 -0500
"Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed Dec 3, 2025 at 4:50 PM -05, David Lechner wrote:
> > On 12/3/25 1:18 PM, Kurt Borja wrote:  
> >> Rename iio_device_claim_buffer_mode() -> iio_device_claim_buffer() to
> >> match iio_device_claim_direct().
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---  
> > If we decide to do this, I would squash this with the previous patch
> > to make a clean break of it. Although it is helpful to have "mode"
> > in the name if we can keep that without breaking things.  
> 
> Agree, but If rename iio_device_claim_direct() that would be too big and
> I think it should be separate patches.
> 
For the iio_device_claim() there were far to many drivers to do
the conversions in a single patch hence I needed a different name
and took the view the _mode() wasn't that important.

We already had precedence in the _scoped() variant that I was ripping
out (the revert David refers to in the cover letter discussion).

As you say it is probably not worth the effort of putting the _mode()
prefix back and things are inconsistent.

So I think this is on balance the most practical way to get to a
consistent ABI again.  However as suggested, if we agree to go this
way squash with previous patch.

Jonathan