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`.
...
> +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?
...
> + /* If not found, don't error out as we might have legacy DT property */
This seems related to ENOENT, correct?
> + if (!IS_ERR(st->back))
> + return 0;
And the above is about something else (found?) case, right?
> + if (PTR_ERR(st->back) != -ENOENT)
> + return PTR_ERR(st->back);
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
