On Fri, 2023-08-18 at 18:57 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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 Thanks for the clarification. I initially understood the opposite :S > > > 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 :/ >
