On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 16:19 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023, at 15:30, Balas, Eliza wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > Cvetic <dragan.cvetic@xxxxxxx>; Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] drivers: misc: adi-axi-tdd: Add TDD engine > > > > > > > Since the device is not an iio device, using an iio function would > > > > > > be confusing. > > > > > > > > > > Why isn't this an iio device? > > > > > > > > The device is not registered into the IIO device tree, > > > > and does not rely on IIO kernel APIs. > > > > Even though there are a few attributes that resemble the > > > > ones from iio, and the sysfs structure is similar, > > > > this is not an IIO device. > > > > In the previous patch versions 1 and 2 we concluded > > > > that this device fits better in the misc subsystem. > > > > > > Ok, can you point to that in the changelog where the IIO maintainer > > > agreed that this doesn't fit into that subsystem? > > > > > This was one of the discussions from previous v2 : > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/5b6318f16799e6e2575fe541e83e42e0afebe6cf.camel@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > I will add it to the changelog the next time I submit the patches. > > It sounds like Jonathan wasn't quite sure either here, and I would > still argue (as I did in that thread), that drivers/iio is probably > a better option than drivers/misc. > Well, if Jonathan agrees to have this in IIO, it would actually be better for us... The below hack would not be needed at all and IIO is very familiar. > In particular, you mention that you actually make this device > appear as an IIO device to user space using the "iio-fake" hack. > I want to emphasize that is just our hack to make use of libiio RPC so that we can remotely access this device. - Nuno Sá