Re: [PATCH v6 12/16] iio: frequency: ad9910: add RAM mode support
Nuno Sá <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-hardening,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-iio,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <akzaWsIIA-uF_Crs@nsa> |
On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 09:10:21AM -0500, David Lechner wrote: > On 7/6/26 4:47 AM, Nuno Sá wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 04, 2026 at 11:50:35AM -0500, David Lechner wrote: > >> On 7/3/26 9:09 AM, Nuno Sá wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 04:05:44AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >>>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 14:27:28 +0100 > >>>> Rodrigo Alencar via B4 Relay <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> From: Rodrigo Alencar <[email protected]> > >>>>> > > .. > > >>>>> +static inline void ad9910_debugfs_init(struct ad9910_state *st, > >>>>> + struct iio_dev *indio_dev) > >>>>> +{ > >>>>> + struct dentry *d = iio_get_debugfs_dentry(indio_dev); > >>>>> + char buf[64]; > >>>>> + > >>>>> + /* > >>>>> + * symlinks are created here so iio userspace tools can refer to them > >>>>> + * as debug attributes. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe worth a reference to appropriate ABI doc here (even if it is introduced > >>>> in a later patch) > >>> > >>> I'm not so sure about these links. I mean, I definitely agree we should > >>> make it easy for userspace tools like libiio to be able to handle > >>> these kind of attributes but using debugfs is questionable to me. Pretty > >>> much because this is not a debug thing. It is a real setting for the > >>> driver so ideally we would be able to control it (using the existent > >>> tools) without enforcing one to mount debugfs (I know that most of the > >>> times it's always mounted but still feels wrong to tie "real > >>> functionality" to debugfs). > >>> > >>> Having said the above, some suggestions: > >>> > >>> 1. Make the iio_dev the parent so that the attr name is just "ram" and > >>> it will be a subdir /sys/bus/iio/iio:deviceN/ram/. > >>> 2. Propose a new helper for the firmware_loader code so we can get > >>> struct device from struct fw_upload then we can easily create a sysfs > >>> symlink. > >>> 3. Name the attr as dev_name(iio_dev):attr so that it becomes > >>> iio:deviceN:attr_name. > >>> > >>> Now that I think about it, 2. does not make much sense when compared to > >>> 1. And If I'm not missing anything both 1. and 3. can be sanely parsable > >>> from userspace (being 3. maybe a bit more reliable). And yes, both require > >>> user space tools (in this case libiio) to support a new type of > >>> attribute (firmware) but that is another problem. > >> > >> I would say that udev should be used to find the firmware device from > >> userspace rather than creating symlinks. And you probably don't even > >> need udev if you already have the `iio-device:<ID>` value. The path > > > > Just one note. If you mean <ID> as the attr name the above will fail for > > multiple instances of the same device. That's is why a proposed > > dev_name(iio_dev) which I think it should reliable be iio:deviceN. > > My <ID> is the same as your N. It looks like I just had a typo of > an extra : in there. > > > > > I guess N might change so anyone hardcoding it might have surprises. But > > That is why I mentioned udev. I see! I would still advocate for apps to properly do the matching between the current device id and the firmware path :) But the above is obvious something we can't control. - Nuno Sá > > > properly done and we have a sane way to match the above with anything on > > /sys/class/firmware/iio:deviceN:<attr>/ > > > >> is always going to be `/sys/class/firmware/iio-device:<ID>:ram/`. It > >> seems like the same amount of work for usespace to computer the path > >> either way, so might as well keep it simple and leave out the symlink > >> stuff. > > > > Yes, at least for libiio, `iio:deviceN` is already what we call the > > device ID so we can match fw attrs against it and everything after the > > last ':' is treated as the attr_name. > > > > We just need to keep in mind that if a second user of this stuff pops > > up, we should add a new helper to enforce the ABI. > > > > - Nuno Sá > >> > >>> > >>> - Nuno Sá > >>>> > >>>>> + */ > >>>>> + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "/sys/class/firmware/%s/loading", st->ram_fwu_name); > >>>>> + debugfs_create_symlink("ram_loading", d, buf); > >>>>> + > >>>>> + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "/sys/class/firmware/%s/data", st->ram_fwu_name); > >>>>> + debugfs_create_symlink("ram_data", d, buf); > >>>>> +} > >>>>> +