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;
?
> > +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;
>
> ?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
