On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:33:49PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 3/11/22 12:29, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 1:55 AM Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 3/10/22 15:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 01:34:00AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
...
> > > > > - .realbits = 12, \
> > > > > + .realbits = (_realbits), \
> > > > > .storagebits = 16, \
> > > >
> > > > This seems inconsistent a bit. What if the next chip wants to have more than
> > > > 16 bits in realbits?
> > >
> > > When such a chip exists, this can be parametrized as well.
> >
> > Yes, My point is that it's error prone.
>
> Won't IIO core warn if realbits > storagebits ?
If it's the case, then it's very good!
...
> > > > I see two options:
> > > > 1) add static assert to make sure realbits <= storagebits;
> > >
> > > Does static_assert work in array of structures (I don't think it does) ?
> >
> > You can check, but IIRC some of the macros have it. Don't remember the
> > details, though.
>
> I already checked before replying, hence my question, as I didn't find a way
> to make it work.
It seems that current use cases have it either in functions or in
the expressions as ({...}). I dunno if the result of ({...}) can be
a data structure or compound literal.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
