On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 4:31 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Dec 2020 17:55:22 +0200 > Alexandru Ardelean <ardeleanalex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:53 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:45 PM Alexandru Ardelean > > > <ardeleanalex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:37 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:55 AM Alexandru Ardelean > > > > > <alexandru.ardelean@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Are you sure there is no user space application that doesn't rely on > > > > > character device to be always present? > > > > > > > > Nope. > > > > I'm not sure. > > > > I'm also not completely sure how Jonathan feels about this patch being > > > > added now [so late]. > > > > > > > > Though, technically if the chardev was already there, without all the > > > > control in place [to enable IIO buffers and other stuff through the > > > > chardev] then it's technically just a "marker" file. > > > > Which arguably is a lot to have (i.e. chardev that should be unusable). > > > > > > > > If it is usable with no control in place for buffers or other stuff > > > > (i.e. I missed something), then I also don't know. > > > > > > > > So, this patch on it's own can still be interpreted as an RFC. > > > > See: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20201121180246.772ad299@archlinux/ > > > > > > Don't take me wrong, I'm not against a good change (I doesn't like > > > dangling files), but it might break some use cases. > > > > Yeah I know. > > But how else do you know if a dangling file might break some use cases? > > > > The worst that would happen is that we get a report and create a Fixes > > tag and we know. > > But if we don't try it, we're stuck with it, and will never know. > > > It's definitely a high risk change. I'd 'hope' it's not a problem > but we should do a bit more due diligence. > > I hope we can assume the ADI software is all fine with dropping this. > Bastien can you see any issues with dropping chrdev for IIO devices > that don't actually support using it for anything (sysfs interface only). > > What other stacks are people aware of that we should enquire about? Hey, Any more thoughts on this? Thanks Alex > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > > > > > -- > > > With Best Regards, > > > Andy Shevchenko >
