Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] iio: buffer: add support for multiple buffers | From | Lars-Peter Clausen <> | Date | Mon, 11 May 2020 15:58:01 +0200 |
| |
On 5/11/20 3:24 PM, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote: > On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 13:03 +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote: >> [External] >> >> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 12:37 +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >>> [External] >>> >>> On 5/11/20 12:33 PM, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote: >>>> On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 11:09 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>>>> [External] >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 9 May 2020 10:52:14 +0200 >>>>> Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/8/20 3:53 PM, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> What I don't like, is that iio:device3 has iio:buffer3:0 (to 3). >>>>>>> This is because the 'buffer->dev.parent = &indio_dev->dev'. >>>>>>> But I do feel this is correct. >>>>>>> So, now I don't know whether to leave it like that or symlink to >>>>>>> shorter >>>>>>> versions like 'iio:buffer3:Y' -> 'iio:device3/bufferY'. >>>>>>> The reason for naming the IIO buffer devices to 'iio:bufferX:Y' is >>>>>>> mostly to make the names unique. It would have looked weird to do >>>>>>> '/dev/buffer1' if I would have named the buffer devices 'bufferX'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, now I'm thinking of whether all this is acceptable. >>>>>>> Or what is acceptable? >>>>>>> Should I symlink 'iio:device3/iio:buffer3:0' -> >>>>>>> 'iio:device3/buffer0'? >>>>>>> What else should I consider moving forward? >>>>>>> What means forward? >>>>>>> Where did I leave my beer? >>>>>> Looking at how the /dev/ devices are named I think we can provide a >>>>>> name >>>>>> that is different from the dev_name() of the device. Have a look at >>>>>> device_get_devnode() in drivers/base/core.c. We should be able to >>>>>> provide the name for the chardev through the devnode() callback. >>>>>> >>>>>> While we are at this, do we want to move the new devices into an iio >>>>>> subfolder? So iio/buffer0:0 instead of iio:buffer0:0? >>>>> Possibly on the folder. I can't for the life of me remember why I >>>>> decided >>>>> not to do that the first time around - I'll leave it at the >>>>> mysterious "it may turn out to be harder than you'd think..." >>>>> Hopefully not ;) >>>> I was also thinking about the /dev/iio subfolder while doing this. >>>> I can copy that from /dev/input >>>> They seem to do it already. >>>> I don't know how difficult it would be. But it looks like a good >>>> precedent. >>> All you have to do is return "iio/..." from the devnode() callback. >> I admit I did not look closely into drivers/input/input.c before mentioning >> this >> as as good precedent. >> >> But, I looks like /dev/inpput is a class. >> While IIO devices are a bus_type devices. >> Should we start implementing an IIO class? or? > What I should have highlighted [before] with this, is that there is no devnode() > callback for the bus_type [type]. But there is one in device_type :)
| |