Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 15:11:52 +0200
From:   Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc:     Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel@...labora.com>,
        Paul Gazzillo <paul@...zz.com>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>,
        Zhigang Shi <Zhigang.Shi@...eon.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] iio: light: Add gain-time-scale helpers

On 3/13/23 14:40, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 05:08:48PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:06:38 +0000
>> Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2023 11:17:15 +0200
>>> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>> Given most modern IIO drivers use fully devm_ based probing, for now I would not
>>> expose anything else.  That will reduce the interface a lot which I think
>>> is probably a good thing at this stage.

Probably at any stage :)

>>>
>>> Keep the non devm stuff internally though as it is a nice structure to have
>>> an I can see we may want some of these in non devm form in the future.

Ok. I was pondering this while writing these APIs. I was just thinking 
that _maybe_ someone has an driver where they do not use devm for a 
reason. Allowing a "non devm" variants for such is likely to be needed. 
Hence, I was thinking that having a non devm version could be beneficial 
from the start to avoid someone being tempted to just mix the readily 
available devm with manual unwinding...

>>>
>>> Similarly - for now don't expose the individual table building functions
>>> as we may never need them in drivers.  We (more or less) only support interfaces
>>> that are used and so far they aren't.

I was thinking of this too. It was just the small 'avoid extra 
operations [like unnecessary endianess conversions :p] when 
needed'-voice in me that started screaming when I though of exporting 
only the 'build all' and 'purge all' APIs...

>>>
>>> For other functions it's worth thinking about whether to not export them
>>> initially. I haven't been through them all to figure out what is not currently used.

I think I can go through them. There are a few that aren't currently used.

>>>
>> Ah. I forgot the tests that don't have a device so can't use devm.
> 
> Why not? I have seen, IIRC, test cases inside the kernel that fakes the device
> for that.

I'd appreciated any pointer for such an example if you have one at hand. 
(I can do the digging if you don't though!)

I am not a fan of unit tests. They add huge amount of inertia to 
development, and in worst case, they stop people from contributing where 
improving a feature requires test code modification(s). And harder the 
test code is to understand, worse the unwanted side-effects. Also, 
harder the test code is to read, more time and effort it requires to 
analyze a test failure... Hence, I am _very_ conservative what comes to 
adding size of test code with anything that is not strictly required.

After that being said, unit tests are a great tool when carefully used - 
and I assume/hope stubbing a device for devm_ tests does not add much 
extra... But let me see if I can find an example :)

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~

Powered by blists - more mailing lists