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

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 01:18:04PM +0100, Gerald Loacker wrote:
> 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;

It's a rule to use _t for typedef:s in the kernel. That's why
I suggested to leave struct definition and only typedef the same structures
(existing) to new names (if needed).

> or

> 	typedef iio_val_int_plus_micro iio_val_int_plus_micro_db;

This is better as explained above.

> 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;
> >>
> >> ?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko