On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 03:55:19PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 13:07:21 +0200 > Vasileios Amoiridis <vassilisamir@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 12:44:15PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > On 9/21/24 23:07, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 12:23:39PM -0700, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > > > > > On 9/21/24 11:19, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote: > > > > > > The iio_validate_own_trigger() function was added in this commit [1] but it is > > > > > > the same with the below function called iio_trigger_validate_own_device(). The > > > > > > bodies of the functions can be found in [2], [3]. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/51cd3e3e74a6addf8d333f4a109fb9c5a11086ee.1683541225.git.mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > [2]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/drivers/iio/industrialio-trigger.c#L732 > > > > > > [3]: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/drivers/iio/industrialio-trigger.c#L752 > > > > > > > > > > The signature of the two functions are different, the order of the > > > > > parameters is switched. So you can't just swap them out for the > > > > > `validate_trigger` callback since the signature is not compatible. But maybe > > > > > you can update the implementation of one of the functions to calling the > > > > > other function. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Lars, > > > > > > > > Hmm, I see what you mean. Still though, do you think that we could do some > > > > cleaning here? I can see 3 approaches: > > > > > > > > 1) One of the 2 functions calls the other internally and nothing else has > > > > to change. > > > > > > I would go with this. Changing the signatures to be the same would be (in > > > my, not always humble enough, opinion) wrong. The different order of > > > parameters reflects the different idea. One checks if device for trigger is > > > the right one, the other checks if the trigger for the device is the right > > > one. Thus, the order of parameters should be different. > > > > > > Calling the same implementation internally is fine with me. Maybe Jonathan > > > will share his opinion when recovers from all the plumbing in Vienna ;) > > > > > > Yours, > > > -- Matti > > > > > > -- > > > Matti Vaittinen > > > Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors > > > Oulu Finland > > > > > > > Hi Matti! > > > > Thanks for your comment! Well, I still think in my eyes is better to > > have one function do one thing instead of multiple. Also, I didn't > > think of this argument with the order of arguments, it makes sense. > > My experience is quite limited to how things should be in such a > > large project so I trust your opinion. I would still like to see > > what Jonathan has to say on this though, maybe he had some > > reasoning behind!!! > > > No to changing the signatures. It removes the difference > in meaning of the callbacks even though they happen to have > the same implementation in this very simple (and common case). > > In the trigger first one, that is the subject. We are asking the > question 'is this trigger ok being used for this device'. > In the other the device is the subject and we asking the > question 'is this device ok to use this trigger' > > When we are checking the combination you have here, sure they > become the same thing but there are devices where it > matters that the trigger is not used to drive other devices > (typically because it's a hardware line that goes nowhere > else, so no interrupts etc) but other triggers can be used > to drive this device (often by software triggering the scan). > We have the opposite case as well but that's often > a shortcut when it just happens to be really complex to get > the trigger to reset (often requires reading all the data > or similar) - that condition can almost always be relaxed > but sometimes it's a lot of code for a niche case. > > So fine to change the implementation of one of these > checks on tightly coupled device and trigger to call the other > but don't touch the callback signatures as to that breaks the > logical parameter ordering. > > Jonathan > Hi Jonathan, Thank you very much for the explanation, it makes total sense. No need to change everything I think, it is a very small thing and maybe even better like how it is now from what I understand. Cheers, Vasilis > > Have a nice day! > > > > Cheers, > > Vasilis >
