From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A64411D61B7; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752252305; cv=none; b=QrVwfZ4HhLQpv24Z+p94N7y80rY+VM9h718tDtPNZpNYq1FBMYPQsxQvQ3yztgUR1ORvVz5OtYvenN+0gNiVQy4QCfSYGy9ToJQNhwCFuE0iuCtfr6Q0KIgiRe172sSz3qQoex/mnthhjhEESIMFiSTnorV066nfNZZhkrZ3DRQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752252305; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UUOYwYEJlozi8Wzv5q3rBswbp7/b1XkC3JtvE7Rfze4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=NX9TCSxlXJg61WnpDzjcYL/zsj+LgaXsW8L9ndiR5XyWWdjYRbzCPNEvCNpNFleUnCiFY3ink9KCnye0mdSD7Oq80tq23Q7Q/Tw5p5BVuNhsc2aDIg885QMf+OR1ihAIL9jbSlPt4ShkzRjLmTbYXzQ6b0FupzSWSev73Ehzlz0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Oq6eBX7o; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.9 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Oq6eBX7o" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1752252304; x=1783788304; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=UUOYwYEJlozi8Wzv5q3rBswbp7/b1XkC3JtvE7Rfze4=; b=Oq6eBX7oeXejsX2YFdQukQbpXQiAsXydPOb3uRaE9w7GPN2+uGTg7lVS IqfUAdD1z66NTTzRfQCzfYeDmybygkxtZdI3ZbpxFHDNzvmmDCBxkWN7t r7q7B5k3ey74TY1l9sknFBpu9T9mzm/CHvfydh9zoJbiOhtIs0J1rFc0o 3jOZYlYtRIZtITWMwXFbhBdtnkTR0TiTqKujU9DLL+JA/zyz5HB3o8GhB 6fGXYOe2QlQcYmO6clwqfuerVW5K8M4FPYC9X4APErl+GxR6eFc7m8Rq2 nTOV2wB8DlF6PlnCExR9ncr5ENAcEFryLF63R4CUvjBTv/2GxpSvKEAY4 g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 7nFXQWMhQyGQ6kVMrIgGjQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: /eSimsObSMOhRJru6ZZKEg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11491"; a="77096301" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,304,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="77096301" Received: from fmviesa004.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.144]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jul 2025 09:45:04 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: qtvDpmFEQYWLt22VuooJ7g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Gykpny7/Rm2rtjuPAEIyew== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.16,304,1744095600"; d="scan'208";a="161978280" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.52]) by fmviesa004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jul 2025 09:45:01 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uaGrq-0000000EaNE-3FO8; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 19:44:58 +0300 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 19:44:58 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: David Lechner Cc: Jonathan Cameron , Nuno =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E1?= , Andy Shevchenko , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: proximity: isl29501: use scan struct instead of array Message-ID: References: <20250711-iio-use-more-iio_declare_buffer_with_ts-7-v1-1-a3f253ac2e4a@baylibre.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-iio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250711-iio-use-more-iio_declare_buffer_with_ts-7-v1-1-a3f253ac2e4a@baylibre.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 11:18:13AM -0500, David Lechner wrote: > Replace the scan buffer array with a struct that contains a single u32 > for the data and an aligned_s64 for the timestamp. This makes it easier > to see the intended layout of the buffer and avoids the need to manually > calculate the number of extra elements needed for an aligned timestamp. Same Q, why not macro? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko