On 5/29/24 9:03 AM, Ceclan, Dumitru wrote:
> On 29/05/2024 15:46, Nuno Sá wrote:
>> On Mon, 2024-05-27 at 20:02 +0300, Dumitru Ceclan via B4 Relay wrote:
>>> From: Dumitru Ceclan <dumitru.ceclan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ...
>
>>> static const struct ad7173_device_info ad7173_device_info[] = {
>>> + [ID_AD4111] = {
>>> + .name = "ad4111",
>>> + .id = AD7173_AD4111_AD4112_AD4114_ID,
>>> + .num_voltage_inputs_with_divider = 8,
>>> + .num_channels = 16,
>>> + .num_configs = 8,
>>> + .num_voltage_inputs = 8,
>>> + .num_gpios = 2,
>>> + .higher_gpio_bits = true,
>>> + .has_temp = true,
>>> + .has_vcom_input = true,
>>> + .has_input_buf = true,
>>> + .has_current_inputs = true,
>>> + .has_int_ref = true,
>>> + .clock = 2 * HZ_PER_MHZ,
>>> + .sinc5_data_rates = ad7173_sinc5_data_rates,
>>> + .num_sinc5_data_rates = ARRAY_SIZE(ad7173_sinc5_data_rates),
>>> + },
>>
>> At some point it would be nice to drop the ad7173_device_info array...
>>
> What are good alternatives to this?
Drivers like ad7091r8 have individual static struct ad7091r_init_info
instead of putting them all in an array. I like doing it that
way because it makes less code to read compared to having the
array.
It would let us get rid of enum ad7173_ids, have one level less
indent on each static const struct ad7173_device_info and
{ .compatible = "adi,ad7172-2", .data = &ad7173_device_info },
would now fit on one line since we no longer need the array
index.
