Am 25.11.2022 um 12:01 schrieb Andy Shevchenko: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:45:06PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 09:35:24AM +0100, Gerald Loacker wrote: > > ... > >>> +struct iio_val_int_plus_micro { >>> + int val_int; >>> + int val_micro; >>> +}; > > Thinking more about naming, why not drop val_ completely? > > int integer; > int micro; > > ? > Yes, this sounds good to me. I think of adding only typedef struct { int integer; int micro; } iio_val_int_plus_micro; for now, and one can add similar structures when needed, like typedef struct { int integer; int nano; } iio_val_int_plus_nano; or typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db; If you think it's better to add them all, I can do that, of course. >>> +struct iio_val_int_plus_nano { >>> + int val_int; >>> + int val_nano; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +struct iio_val_int_plus_micro_db { >>> + int val_int; >> >> int val_int_db; ? >> >>> + int val_micro_db; >>> +}; >> >> Actually why can't we simply do >> >> typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro_db iio_val_int_plus_micro; >> >> ? >