Re: [PATCH 3/6] iio: buffer-dma: Turn iio_dma_buffer_init() void

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

On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 10:25:20AM +0000, Nuno Sá wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-12-27 at 16:02 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 5:03 PM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2025-12-03 at 18:34 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 03:11:38PM +0000, Nuno Sá via B4 Relay wrote:

...

> > > > > While at it, fix a mismatch between the function declaration and definition
> > > > > regarding the struct device (dma_dev != dev).
> > > > 
> > > > So, all others use simple dev?
> > > 
> > > Totally forgot about this. What do you mean by the above? If other functions in the
> > > header use just dev? If so, the one I changed is the only one that uses struct device
> > > (in that header). It is also consistent with what we have for the devm_iio_dmaengine_*
> > > APIs.
> > 
> > Does the device, that is physical, DMA? Or is it a separate device for
> > that purpose? I mean that naming may suggest that they are different
> > devices. The original Q was about APIs. Are all of them, after your
> > patch, use the same device semantically?
> 
> This device is the DMA capable device which provides the DMA chan

A side note, DMA capable device and device that provides DMA chan depending on
the topology can be still different devices. So, the sentence above makes a
little sense to me due to "DMA capable device which provides DMA chan" passage.

> which indeed is not the same as the struct device in the devm APIs (that one
> is the consumer). So dma_dev might be a better name even though the docs
> already make it clear.

Thanks for confirming this!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko