[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2cfd1bb-0bc0-47c0-a68a-3967cd64878c@vaisala.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:39:08 +0000
From: Tomas Melin <tomas.melin@...sala.com>
To: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>, Michael Hennerich
<Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>, Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Lars-Peter
Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, David Lechner
<dlechner@...libre.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
CC: "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: adc: ad9467: make iio backend optional
Hi,
On 16/12/2025 14:56, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-12-16 at 11:40 +0000, Tomas Melin wrote:
>> Not all users can or want to use the device with an iio-backend.
>> For these users, let the driver work in standalone mode, not coupled
>> to the backend or the services it provides.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomas Melin <tomas.melin@...sala.com>
>> ---
>
> Which users? The only usecases (for all the supported devices) we have require
> the FPGA backend. So do you have a specific usecase for a specific device? If so, I would
> prefer an explicit boolean in the chip_info struture for the device(s) we know this
> can happen (unless you have a usecase for all :)).
This is generically for all the devices supported by the ad9467, not
only a specific device. So it's about how this is used as part of the
design.
This is aimed at users that do not use the ADI HDL reference backend
with these devices, but instead have custom backends suited for their
own needs.
In that case, we need to be able to skip the backend registration and
register device as a standalone iio device.
Hopefully this made the use case clearer?
Thanks,
Tomas
>
> - Nuno Sá
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists