linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] iio: add struct declarations for iio types

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a55e73f7-4daf-6892-34dc-61c6f6581d8e@wolfvision.net>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:18:04 +0100
From:   Gerald Loacker <gerald.loacker@...fvision.net>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
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



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;

or
	
	typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;

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;
>>
>> ?
>