Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() return semantics

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 17:05:29 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 4:22 PM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-12-03 at 14:18 -0500, Kurt Borja wrote:  
> > > In order to improve API consistency with conditional locks, use
> > > true/false return semantics in iio_device_claim_buffer_mode().
> > >
> > > This also matches iio_device_claim_direct() return semantics.  
> 
> > Even if the rest gets a NACK, I think at least this patch makes sense. In fact I
> > would even extend it so that we have the same inline API with proper annotations:
> >
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18/source/include/linux/iio/iio.h#L679
> >
> > So it really has the same semantics as iio_device_claim_direct()  
> 
> I remember I looked into this when Jonathan provided an API, but I
> have no memory of why we have the -EBUSY which is not used in the
> callers.

Random historical choice.   I think at the time I vaguely thought
we might have other return values, but they never surfaces so these
might as well have always return booleans.

Jonathan