Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] iio: adc: add helpers for parsing ADC nodes

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

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

> > > > > (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.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko