On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:41:05 +0200 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 12:10:23PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > On 20/02/2025 16:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 04:21:37PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > On 20/02/2025 16:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 03:40:30PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > > On 20/02/2025 14:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:13:00AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > > > > > > On 19/02/2025 22:41, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 02:30:27PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iio_adc_device_num_channels); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No namespace? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was considering also this. The IIO core functions don't belong into a > > > > > > > > namespace - so I followed the convention to keep these similar to other IIO > > > > > > > > core stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it's historically. We have already started using namespaces > > > > > > > in the parts of IIO, haven't we? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But as I wrote, I don't think adding new namespaces for every helper > > > > > > file with a function or two exported will scale. We either need something > > > > > > common for IIO (or IIO "subsystems" like "adc", "accel", "light", ... ), or > > > > > > then we just keep these small helpers same as most of the IIO core. > > > > > > > > > > It can be still pushed to IIO_CORE namespace. Do you see an issue with that? > > > > > > > > No. I've missed the fact we have IIO_CORE O_o. Thanks for pointing it out! > > > > > > > > > Or a new opaque namespace for the mentioned cases, something like IIO_HELPERS. > > > > > > > > I am unsure if it really benefits to split this out of the IIO_CORE. I've a > > > > feeling it falls into the category of making things harder for user with no > > > > apparent reason. But yes, the IIO_CORE makes sense. > > > > > > Probably I was not clear, I mean to put this under a given namespace. There is > > > no a such, we have currently: > > > > > > IIO_BACKEND > > > IIO_DMA_BUFFER > > > IIO_DMAENGINE_BUFFER > > > IIO_GTS_HELPER > > > IIO_RESCALE > > > > Ah. So, the IIO core stuff is still not in a namespace. Those listed above > > are all too specific (I believe, in general, and definitely to carry ADC > > helpers). Not yet. On todo list... Trick is working out what the correct break up is. > > > > Adding 'ADC_HELPERS' would just add yet another way too specific one. So, > > currently there is no suitable namespace for these helpers, and I still > > believe they fit best to where the rest of the IIO-core stuff is. Just add an IIO namespace. That would be the one I'd expect a typical driver to use. We can move things into it later. The ones above are more obscure functionality. Avoid the IIO_CORE naming as I'd expect that to be stuff the core alone should call and we shouldn't see in drivers. > > > > If we want really play the namespace game, then the existing IIO stuff > > should be put in a IIO_CORE-namespace instead of creating more new small > > ones. I am afraid that adding all existing IIO core to a IIO_CORE namespace > > and converting all existing users to use the IIO_CORE is not a reasonable > > request for a person trying to: > > > > 1. Write a driver > > 2. Add a small helper to aid others (instead of just melding it all in the > > given new driver - which does not benefit anyone else and just leads to code > > duplication in the long run...) > > That's why more specific, but also a bit general might work, like IIO_HELPERS, > considering that they may be used by many drivers. > > While it may be not your call, somebody should do the job. Jonathan? :-) It's on the list. Not that near the top of it, but there to do at somepoint. > > > > > > > > > (Sometimes I have a feeling that the trend today is to try make things > > > > > > > > intentionally difficult in the name of the safety. Like, "more difficult I > > > > > > > > make this, more experience points I gain in the name of the safety".) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I suppose I could add a namespace for these functions - if this > > > > > > > > approach stays - but I'd really prefer having all IIO core stuff in some > > > > > > > > global IIO namespace and not to have dozens of fine-grained namespaces for > > > > > > > > an IIO driver to use... > > ... > > > > > > > foo &= (~bar); > > > > > > > > > > > > is _much_ faster than seeing: > > > > > > > > > > Strongly disagree. One need to parse an additional pair of parentheses, > > > > > and especially when it's a big statement inside with nested ones along > > > > > with understanding what the heck is going on that you need them in the > > > > > first place. > > > > > > > > > > On top of that, we have a common practices in the LK project and > > > > > with our history of communication it seems you are trying to do differently > > > > > from time to time. Sounds like a rebellion to me :-) > > > > > > > > I only rebel when I (in my opinion) have a solid reason :) > > > > > > > > > > foo &= ~bar; > > > > > > > > > > > > and having to google the priorities. > > > > > > > > > > Again, this is something a (regular) kernel developer keeps refreshed. > > > > > Or even wider, C-language developer. > > > > > > > > Ha. As I mentioned, I've been writing C on a daily bases for almost 25 > > > > years. I wonder if you intent to say I am not a kernel/C-language developer? > > > > Bold claim. > > > > > > I'm just surprised by seeing that style from a 25y experienced C developer, > > > that's all. > > > > I am not. If something, these 25 years have taught me to understand that > > even if something is simple and obvious to me, it may not be simple and > > obvious to someone else. Similarly, something obvious to someone else, is > > not obvious to me. Hence, I am very careful when telling people that: > > > > >>> Again, this is something a (regular) kernel developer keeps refreshed. > > >>> Or even wider, C-language developer. > > > > I may however say that "this is something _I_ keep refreshed (as a > > kernel/C-developer)". > > True. > > > As an example, > > > > >>>> foo &= (~bar); > > > > This is something _I_ find very clear and exact, with zero doubt if negation > > is applied before &=. For _me_ the parenthesis there _help_, and for _me_ > > the parenthesis cause no confusion when reading the code. > > > > I won't go and tell that I'd expect any C or kernel developer to be able to > > fluently parse "foo &= (~bar)". (Whether I think they should is another > > matter). > > > Oh well, let's wait and see what Jonathan thinks of these helpers in > > general. We can continue the parenthesis discussion when we know whether the > > code is going to stay. > > Sure, but it's not only about these helpers, it's about the style in general. > Spreading unneeded characters in the code seems to me as an attempt to put > _your_ rules over the subsytem's ones. Whatever, let's Jonathan to judge, we > will never agree on a keep growing list of things anyway... > I need to find some time to consider it a bit more and look at other users. I'm not keen on this being 'general' if we only have one user in the short term. Jonathan
