Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] iio: core: Match iio_device_claim_*() return semantics

["Kurt Borja" <kuurtb@gmail.com>]

On Sat Dec 6, 2025 at 1:05 PM -05, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2025 14:23:19 +0000
> Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2025-12-03 at 14:18 -0500, Kurt Borja wrote:
>> > In order to improve API consistency with conditional locks, use
>> > true/false return semantics in iio_device_claim_buffer_mode().
>> > 
>> > This also matches iio_device_claim_direct() return semantics.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com>
>> > ---  
>> 
>> Even if the rest gets a NACK, I think at least this patch makes sense. In fact I
>> would even extend it so that we have the same inline API with proper annotations:
>> 
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18/source/include/linux/iio/iio.h#L679
>> 
>> So it really has the same semantics as iio_device_claim_direct()
>
> Yeah. This was on my mental todo list. So great to see Kurt
> dealing with it! :)  These calls are much rarer than the direct ones
> so I wasn't so fussed about getting the sparse coverage. Makes
> sense to do it just wasn't high priority.
>
> As Nuno, suggested though I would like the sparse support for these.
>
> Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

Great! I'll squash all "semantics" patches and add sparse support.


-- 
 ~ Kurt