On 09/16/13 09:19, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 09/16/2013 09:58 AM, Peter Meerwald wrote: >> >>> Interesting. Whilst this obviouslby results in the removal of a lot of >>> repeated code, I am nervous about introducing the 'hidden' requirement >>> that the data buffer passed in must be bigger than is 'apparently' used >>> in the code calling this. I'm not sure what the right answer is though. >> >> maybe add some iio magic that always allocs the buffer dynamically based >> on the channel definition/scan_bytes > > A lot of drivers already do something like priv_data->buffer = > kzalloc(indio_dev->scan_bytes, ...) in their update_scan_mode callback. > Maybe we can add a transfer_buffer field to the iio_dev struct and have a > function that can be used as a default update_scan_mode callback that > allocates the buffer. That would probably make sense and remove quite a lot of my concern about these. Can happen as a later patch set though. Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
