On 05/09/2016 10:07, Peter Meerwald-Stadler wrote: > >>>> The Allwinner SoCs all have an ADC that can also act as a touchscreen >>>> controller and a thermal sensor. This patch adds the ADC driver which is >>>> based on the MFD for the same SoCs ADC. >>> >>> nitpicking ahead > >> [...] >>>> + >>>> +const unsigned int sun4i_gpadc_chan_select(unsigned int chan) >>> >>> static instead of const? > >> static const then? > > no, the const is redundant and ignored > -Wignored-qualifiers gives a warning > > just static, no const > > see > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12052468/type-qualifiers-on-function-return-type > ACK. Thanks. >>>> +{ >>>> + return SUN6I_GPADC_CTRL1_ADC_CHAN_SELECT(chan); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +struct soc_specific { >>>> + const int temp_offset; >>> >>> wondering why you constify every member? >>> >> >> Because they're supposed to be fixed values? It won't change in runtime. >> Is there any reason why I shouldn't do that? > > yes, but using the entire struct as const has the same effect; > constifying individual members makes more sense if there are also > non-const members > > nothing wrong, just unusual > So I would let all members non-const and then when using the struct soc_specific as a member in a struct or as a variable I would prefix it with const? That's what you mean by using the entire struct as const? [...] Thanks, Quentin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
