Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] iio: core: Refactor iio_device_claim_direct() implementation

[David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>]

On 1/6/26 2:06 AM, Kurt Borja wrote:
> In order to eventually unify the locking API, implement
> iio_device_claim_direct() fully inline, with the use of
> __iio_dev_mode_lock(), which takes care of sparse annotations.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kurt Borja <kuurtb@gmail.com>
> ---

...

> diff --git a/include/linux/iio/iio.h b/include/linux/iio/iio.h
> index aecda887d833..3cf340208694 100644
> --- a/include/linux/iio/iio.h
> +++ b/include/linux/iio/iio.h
> @@ -664,31 +664,47 @@ int iio_push_event(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, u64 ev_code, s64 timestamp);
>  
>  void __iio_dev_mode_lock(struct iio_dev *indio_dev) __acquires(indio_dev);
>  void __iio_dev_mode_unlock(struct iio_dev *indio_dev) __releases(indio_dev);
> -bool __iio_device_claim_direct(struct iio_dev *indio_dev);
> -void __iio_device_release_direct(struct iio_dev *indio_dev);
>  
>  /*
>   * Helper functions that allow claim and release of direct mode
>   * in a fashion that doesn't generate many false positives from sparse.
>   * Note this must remain static inline in the header so that sparse
> - * can see the __acquire() marking. Revisit when sparse supports
> - * __cond_acquires()
> + * can see the __acquires() and __releases() markings.
> + */
> +
nit: I think "attributes" would be more technically correct than
"markings" (since we are touching this).