On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 05:52:07PM +0200, Angel Iglesias wrote: > On Fri, 2023-08-18 at 14:19 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:05:21PM +0200, Angel Iglesias wrote: ... > > > - const unsigned int chip_id; > > > > Yeah, this const makes a little sense... > > > > > + const unsigned int *chip_id; > > > > ...but not this :-) > > Isn't the same case as "const struct iio_chan_spec *channels" or "const int > *oversampling_temp_avail". I thoght that this meant a pointer to a constant > integer. On bmp280-core I declare the arrays with the modifiers static const. Yes, and that is my point: - old code makes a little sense - new code makes a lot of sense > > What I'm wondering is why it's int and not u8 / u16 > > (as it seems only a byte value there). > > Yeah, can be u8, as the reg width is 1 byte and this IDs are stored on one reg. > I just carried over the int type from previous versions, but it's just wasting > space :/ -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
