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

[Jonathan Cameron]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:44:35 -0500
"Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
> 
Agreed. That's nice.