On Fri, 2024-02-09 at 18:37 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:26 PM Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Convert the driver to use the new IIO backend framework. The device
> > functionality is expected to be the same (meaning no added or removed
> > features).
> >
> > Also note this patch effectively breaks ABI and that's needed so we can
> > properly support this device and add needed features making use of the
> > new IIO framework.
> >
> > Given the lack of features (and devices supported) in the ad9467 driver
> > compared with the ADI out of tree version, we don't expect any user of
> > the upstream driver so no one should notice the ABI breakage. However,
> > if someone is affected by this, ADI will happily support transitioning
> > to the backend framework.
>
> ...
>
> > struct ad9467_chip_info {
> > - struct adi_axi_adc_chip_info axi_adc_info;
> > - unsigned int default_output_mode;
> > - unsigned int vref_mask;
> > + const char *name;
> > + unsigned int id;
> > + const struct iio_chan_spec *channels;
> > + unsigned int num_channels;
> > + const unsigned int (*scale_table)[2];
> > + int num_scales;
> > + unsigned long max_rate;
> > + unsigned int default_output_mode;
> > + unsigned int vref_mask;
> > };
>
> Seems like you haven't checked this layout with `pahole`.
>
Not really... IIRC, I just copied the members as-is from the previous struct. Can be
done later I guess...
> ...
>
> > +static int ad9467_iio_backend_get(struct ad9467_state *st)
> > +{
> > + struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev;
> > + struct device_node *__back;
> > +
> > + st->back = devm_iio_backend_get(&st->spi->dev, NULL);
>
> Simply 'dev' as the first parameter?
>
Makes sense...
> ...
>
> > + /* If not found, don't error out as we might have legacy DT property */
>
> This seems related to ENOENT, correct?
Yeah, the comments are in line with the original version of the code where I was
first checking for errors.
- Nuno Sá
