On Sat, 9 May 2020 10:52:14 +0200 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/8/20 3:53 PM, Alexandru Ardelean wrote: > > [...] > > What I don't like, is that iio:device3 has iio:buffer3:0 (to 3). > > This is because the 'buffer->dev.parent = &indio_dev->dev'. > > But I do feel this is correct. > > So, now I don't know whether to leave it like that or symlink to shorter > > versions like 'iio:buffer3:Y' -> 'iio:device3/bufferY'. > > The reason for naming the IIO buffer devices to 'iio:bufferX:Y' is > > mostly to make the names unique. It would have looked weird to do > > '/dev/buffer1' if I would have named the buffer devices 'bufferX'. > > > > So, now I'm thinking of whether all this is acceptable. > > Or what is acceptable? > > Should I symlink 'iio:device3/iio:buffer3:0' -> 'iio:device3/buffer0'? > > What else should I consider moving forward? > > What means forward? > > Where did I leave my beer? > > Looking at how the /dev/ devices are named I think we can provide a name > that is different from the dev_name() of the device. Have a look at > device_get_devnode() in drivers/base/core.c. We should be able to > provide the name for the chardev through the devnode() callback. > > While we are at this, do we want to move the new devices into an iio > subfolder? So iio/buffer0:0 instead of iio:buffer0:0? Possibly on the folder. I can't for the life of me remember why I decided not to do that the first time around - I'll leave it at the mysterious "it may turn out to be harder than you'd think..." Hopefully not ;) Do we want to make the naming a bit more self describing, something like iio/device0:buffer0? Given the legacy interface will be outside the directory anyway, could even do iio/device0/buffer0 with link to iio:device0 iio/device0/buffer1 with no legacy link. Ah, the bikeshedding fun we have ahead of us! I think this set is going to take too much thinking for a Sunday so may take me a little while to do a proper review... + I have a few other side projects I want to hammer on today :) Jonathan
