Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] iio: backend: add devm_iio_backend_get_by_index()

["Nuno Sá" <noname.nuno@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2026-02-09 at 09:28 -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> On 2/8/26 3:24 AM, Nuno Sá wrote:
> > On Fri, 2026-02-06 at 18:07 +0200, Antoniu Miclaus wrote:
> > > Add a new function to get an IIO backend by its index in the
> > > io-backends device tree property. This is useful for multi-channel
> > > devices that have multiple backends, where looking up by index is
> > > more straightforward than using named backends.
> > > 
> > > The new function directly uses the index to find the backend reference
> > > in the io-backends property, avoiding the need for io-backend-names.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Antoniu Miclaus <antoniu.miclaus@analog.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/iio/industrialio-backend.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  include/linux/iio/backend.h        |  2 ++
> > >  2 files changed, 53 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-backend.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-
> > > backend.c
> > > index 447b694d6d5f..3b692d48481e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-backend.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-backend.c
> > > @@ -1008,6 +1008,57 @@ struct iio_backend *devm_iio_backend_get(struct device *dev,
> > > const char *name)
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(devm_iio_backend_get, "IIO_BACKEND");
> > >  
> > > +static struct iio_backend *
> > > +__devm_iio_backend_fwnode_get_by_index(struct device *dev,
> > > +				       struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> > > +				       unsigned int index)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct fwnode_handle *fwnode_back;
> > > +	struct iio_backend *back;
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +
> > > +	fwnode_back = fwnode_find_reference(fwnode, "io-backends", index);
> > > +	if (IS_ERR(fwnode_back))
> > > +		return dev_err_cast_probe(dev, fwnode_back,
> > > +					  "Cannot get Firmware reference\n");
> > > +
> > > +	guard(mutex)(&iio_back_lock);
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(back, &iio_back_list, entry) {
> > > +		if (!device_match_fwnode(back->dev, fwnode_back))
> > > +			continue;
> > > +
> > > +		fwnode_handle_put(fwnode_back);
> > > +		ret = __devm_iio_backend_get(dev, back);
> > > +		if (ret)
> > > +			return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > > +
> > > +		back->idx = index;
> > > +
> > > +		return back;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	fwnode_handle_put(fwnode_back);
> > > +	return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> > > +}
> > 
> > I believe we don't necessarily need this. Why can't we use io-backend-names? I get
> > that in here we just want something matching the number of channels we have so giving
> > names is probably does not add much added value. But still, I would prefer t have
> > more simplicity in the API and it should be fairly easy for the frontend to use the
> > names argument.
> > 
> > _ Nuno Sá
> > 
> 
> IMHO, using names in this case would just be annoying because we would have to
> sprintf the string to add the index to the string. And also have to spend time
> coming up with more complex DT bindings. Using the index seems much simpler.
> 
> If you really feel strongly about it though, maybe we could make a
> devm_iio_backend_fwnode_get_fmt() function instead that handles the
> sprintf() part so that we only have to write that once?
> 

uHu? Maybe I'm completely missing your point but what I had in mind was just something like: 


// from the frontend:

static const char * const names[] = { "adc1", "adc2" }

for (c = 0; c < ARRAY_SIZE(names); c++) {
	back = devm_iio_backend_get(dev, names[c]);
}

So yes, I agree we would have a bit more complex bindings and more complexity in the
frontend. But on the bright side, no need to change backend code at all. And the
-names property is already used like the above fairly often If I'm not mistaken.

But again, I can agree that for this usecase getting things by index makes sense. Given
that we just want n backends for n channels, the name does not add much.

- Nuno Sá