[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f0948adc-8130-4417-8c59-f0b52a7a0e01@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 17:37:01 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Nuno Sá
<nuno.sa@...log.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] iio: introduce IIO_DECLARE_BUFFER_WITH_TS macros
On 4/22/25 5:30 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 1:08 AM David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com> wrote:
>>
...
>> +_Static_assert(sizeof(IIO_DMA_MINALIGN) % sizeof(s64) == 0,
>
> Why not static_assert() ? Because of the message? But static_assert()
> supports messages AFAICS.
>
>> + "macros above assume that IIO_DMA_MINALIGN also ensures s64 timestamp alignment");
>
I just knew that was standard C. But I support BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG or static_assert
would work just as well here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists