On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 01:18:04PM +0100, Gerald Loacker wrote:
> 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;
It's a rule to use _t for typedef:s in the kernel. That's why
I suggested to leave struct definition and only typedef the same structures
(existing) to new names (if needed).
> or
> typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;
This is better as explained above.
> 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;
> >>
> >> ?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
