Re: [PATCH v7 05/10] iio: adc: sun20i-gpadc: Use adc-helpers

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

On 16/03/2025 11:41, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:34:24 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 09:18:49AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>> The new devm_iio_adc_device_alloc_chaninfo_se() -helper is intended to
>>> help drivers avoid open-coding the for_each_node -loop for getting the
>>> channel IDs. The helper provides standard way to detect the ADC channel
>>> nodes (by the node name), and a standard way to convert the "reg"
>>> -properties to channel identification numbers, used in the struct
>>> iio_chan_spec. Furthermore, the helper can optionally check the found
>>> channel IDs are smaller than given maximum. This is useful for callers
>>> which later use the IDs for example for indexing a channel data array.
>>>
>>> The original driver treated all found child nodes as channel nodes. The
>>> new helper requires channel nodes to be named channel[@N]. This should
>>> help avoid problems with devices which may contain also other but ADC
>>> child nodes. Quick grep from arch/* with the sun20i-gpadc's compatible
>>> string didn't reveal any in-tree .dts with channel nodes named
>>> otherwise. Also, same grep shows all the in-tree .dts seem to have
>>> channel IDs between 0..num of channels.
>>>
>>> Use the new helper.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> +	num_channels = devm_iio_adc_device_alloc_chaninfo_se(dev,
>>> +				&sun20i_gpadc_chan_template, -1, &channels);
>>> +	if (num_channels < 0)
>>> +		return num_channels;
>>> +
>>>   	if (num_channels == 0)
>>>   		return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENODEV, "no channel children\n");
>>
>> Note, this what I would expected in your helper to see, i.e. separated cases
>> for < 0 (error code) and == 0, no channels.
>>
>> Also, are all users going to have this check? Usually in other similar APIs
>> we return -ENOENT. And user won't need to have an additional check in case of
>> 0 being considered as an error case too.
> In a few cases we'll need to do the dance the other way in the caller.
> So specifically check for -ENOENT and not treat it as an error.
> 
> That stems from channel nodes being optionally added to drivers after
> they have been around a while (usually to add more specific configuration)
> and needing to maintain old behaviour of presenting all channels with default
> settings.
> 
> I agree that returning -ENOENT is a reasonable way to handle this.

I agree - but I'm going to use -ENODEV instead of -ENOENT because that's 
what the current callers return if they find no channels. That way the 
drivers can return the value directly without converting -ENOENT to -ENODEV.

Yours,
	-- Matti