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);
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.