[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y4CgiMd4XQMV4KFV@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 13:01:28 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Gerald Loacker <gerald.loacker@...fvision.net>
Cc: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Jakob Hauser <jahau@...ketmail.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Nikita Yushchenko <nikita.yoush@...entembedded.com>,
Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: add struct declarations for iio types
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists