[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a1ddec9a04c8a978d50d04c69d675510b05eedb1.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 16:36:57 +0200
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Eliza Balas <Eliza.Balas@...log.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
"derek.kiernan@....com" <derek.kiernan@....com>,
"dragan.cvetic@....com" <dragan.cvetic@....com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] drivers: misc: adi-axi-tdd: Add TDD engine
On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 16:19 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, at 15:30, Balas, Eliza wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > Cvetic <dragan.cvetic@....com>; Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] drivers: misc: adi-axi-tdd: Add TDD engine
>
> > > > > > Since the device is not an iio device, using an iio function would
> > > > > > be confusing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why isn't this an iio device?
> > > >
> > > > The device is not registered into the IIO device tree,
> > > > and does not rely on IIO kernel APIs.
> > > > Even though there are a few attributes that resemble the
> > > > ones from iio, and the sysfs structure is similar,
> > > > this is not an IIO device.
> > > > In the previous patch versions 1 and 2 we concluded
> > > > that this device fits better in the misc subsystem.
> > >
> > > Ok, can you point to that in the changelog where the IIO maintainer
> > > agreed that this doesn't fit into that subsystem?
> > >
> > This was one of the discussions from previous v2 :
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/5b6318f16799e6e2575fe541e83e42e0afebe6cf.camel@gmail.com/
> >
> > I will add it to the changelog the next time I submit the patches.
>
> It sounds like Jonathan wasn't quite sure either here, and I would
> still argue (as I did in that thread), that drivers/iio is probably
> a better option than drivers/misc.
>
Well, if Jonathan agrees to have this in IIO, it would actually be better for
us... The below hack would not be needed at all and IIO is very familiar.
> In particular, you mention that you actually make this device
> appear as an IIO device to user space using the "iio-fake" hack.
>
I want to emphasize that is just our hack to make use of libiio RPC so that we
can remotely access this device.
- Nuno Sá
Powered by blists - more mailing lists