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

[Kurt Borja]

On Sat Dec 27, 2025 at 1:24 PM -05, David Lechner wrote:
> 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()?
>

Yes, that's better.

-- 
 ~ Kurt