Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() semantics and implementation

[David Lechner]

On 12/27/25 12:14 PM, Kurt Borja wrote:
> On Sat Dec 27, 2025 at 9:47 AM -05, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 21:45:21 -0500
>> Kurt Borja <kuurtb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>

...

>> Given earlier discussion about this one being rather more tricky
>> to name than the claim_direct because claim_buffer sounds like
>> we are grabbing the buffer, I'm not sure on the best naming to have
>> here. iio_device_claim_buffer_m maybe?  Ugly though and
>> these are super rare so maybe this isn't a particularly major
>> concern.
> 
> Yes, it's a bit ugly, but as I proposed in the cover letter, if we go
> for a full API rename, it shouldn't matter for now?
> 
> What do you think about that?
> 
> I'll go for iio_device_claim_buffer_m() if I can't think of something
> better.

iio_device_try_claim_buffer_mode()?

> 
>>
>> Given I think the people maintaining most out of tree drivers
>> are Analog Devices maybe this is a question Nuno can answer
>> for us?
>