RE: [PATCH v3 6/8] iio: core: Add IIO_COVERAGE channel type

[Stan, Liviu]

Hello everyone, I'll reply to sashiko's review here:

On Thu, 21 May 2026 18:10:28 +0000 sashiko-bot@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [Low] The sysfs ABI documentation for IIO_COVERAGE incorrectly uses 'X' instead of 'Y' as the channel index wildcard.
> --
>
> commit 6217a0a065fdaa7ef3fffa525f2928d59a323a05
> Author: Liviu Stan <liviu.stan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> iio: core: Add IIO_COVERAGE channel type
>
> This commit introduces a new channel type for sensors that report fractional
> coverage as a percentage. It updates the core IIO structures and provides
> the necessary sysfs ABI documentation for the new attributes.
>
> > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio
> > index 4fc9f6bd42812..90fb8ef26de0e 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio
> > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-iio
> > @@ -1959,6 +1959,23 @@ Description:
> >             Raw (unscaled no offset etc.) resistance reading.
> >             Units after application of scale and offset are ohms.
> >
> > +What:              /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio:deviceX/in_coverageX_raw
>
> [Severity: Low]
> Should this use Y for the channel index wildcard instead of X? The IIO sysfs
> ABI documentation typically uses X strictly for the device index and Y for the
> channel index, which would make this in_coverageY_raw.
>
> > +KernelVersion:     7.2
> > +Contact:   linux-iio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > +Description:
> > +           Raw (unscaled no offset etc.) coverage reading. Used for sensors
> > +           that report fractional coverage as a percentage, such as leak
> > +           detectors where the value represents what portion of the sensing
> > +           element is wetted. Units after application of scale and offset are
> > +           percent.
> > +
> > +What:              /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio:deviceX/in_coverageX_scale
>
> [Severity: Low]
> Does this attribute have the same naming consistency issue? Following the
> standard convention, this would be in_coverageY_scale.
>
> --
> Sashiko AI review * https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260521164323.770626-1-liviu.stan@xxxxxxxxxx?part=6
>

I see now that other attributes have Y as the channel index wildcard.
Will change

Thanks,
Liviu