Hi Gerald, Andy,
On 11/28/22 14:27, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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;
I think we actually want
struct iio_val_int_plus_micro {
int integer;
int micro;
};
here, right?
>> for now, and one can add similar structures when needed, like
>>
>> typedef struct {
>> int integer;
>> int nano;
>> } iio_val_int_plus_nano;
+1 for introducing things when they are actually used.
> 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).
Andy, excuse our ignorance but we are not sure how this typedef approach
is supposed to look like...
>> or
>
>> typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;
... because
#include <stdio.h>
struct iio_val_int_plus_micro {
int integer;
int micro;
};
typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;
int main()
{
struct iio_val_int_plus_micro a = { .integer = 100, .micro = 10, };
struct iio_val_int_plus_micro_db b = { .integer = 20, .micro = 10, };
return 0;
}
won't compile.
> This is better as explained above.
>
>> If you think it's better to add them all, I can do that, of course.
Anyway, seeing that only struct iio_val_int_plus_micro is used at the
moment, I believe the best path forward is to introduce only this struct
and move on.
Best regards,
Michael
>>>>> +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;
>>>>
>>>> ?
>
