Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] iio: core: Replace iio_sysfs_match_string_with_gaps() by __sysfs_match_string()

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 14:24:07 +0100
Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 13:23 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 09:00:45AM +0100, Nuno Sá wrote:  
> > > On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 08:37 -0800, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:  
> > > > On 1/18/23 07:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 07:22:30AM -0800, Lars-Peter Clausen
> > > > > wrote:  
> > > > > > On 1/17/23 23:48, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > > > > > None of the current users is using gaps in the list of the
> > > > > > > items.
> > > > > > > No need to have a specific function for that, just replace
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > library available __sysfs_match_string().  
> > > > > > Hm, I specifically remember adding this for a driver where
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > were gaps.
> > > > > > One of the DACs. But it might be that the driver itself never
> > > > > > made it
> > > > > > upstream.  
> > > > > I have checked all modules that have struct iio_enum and/or
> > > > > ("or"
> > > > > probably may
> > > > > not happen) IIO_ENUM() in them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It might be that I missed something.  
> > > > I checked too, I can't find it either. The driver probably never
> > > > made
> > > > it 
> > > > upstream.  
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I also did a quick check and I could find it in one adc (most
> > > likely we have more downstream users of this) that did not make it
> > > upstream. Eventually, we want to have it upstream but the ABI using
> > > the
> > > gaps can arguably be dropped...
> > > 
> > > Anyways, from my side I'm fine with this change. We can revert it
> > > if we
> > > ever have a real user for this. I'll just have to be careful when
> > > updating ADI tree (but that is our problem :)).

You could always upstream the problematic drivers :)

> > 
> > We usually do not keep a dead code in the kernel, and handling gaps
> > is a dead code.  
> 
> Yes, I know... That is why I cannot really complain about this
> change :)

I joined in because I was really really sure we had a user of this
at somepoint. However, despite there having been a bunch of users
in the counter stuff before that spun out as a separate subsystem
looks like they were contiguous as well. Ah well the reasoning behind
this dance may remain lost to history :)

Series applied,

Jonathan

> 
> - Nuno Sá
>