On 07/12/16 11:00, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
2016-12-07 11:50 GMT+01:00 Lee Jones lee.jones@linaro.org:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2016, Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
[snip]
+static const char * const triggers0[] = {
TIM1_TRGO, TIM1_CH1, TIM1_CH2, TIM1_CH3, TIM1_CH4, NULL,+};
+static const char * const triggers1[] = {
TIM2_TRGO, TIM2_CH1, TIM2_CH2, TIM2_CH3, TIM2_CH4, NULL,+};
+static const char * const triggers2[] = {
TIM3_TRGO, TIM3_CH1, TIM3_CH2, TIM3_CH3, TIM3_CH4, NULL,+};
+static const char * const triggers3[] = {
TIM4_TRGO, TIM4_CH1, TIM4_CH2, TIM4_CH3, TIM4_CH4, NULL,+};
+static const char * const triggers4[] = {
TIM5_TRGO, TIM5_CH1, TIM5_CH2, TIM5_CH3, TIM5_CH4, NULL,+};
+static const char * const triggers5[] = {
TIM6_TRGO, NULL,+};
+static const char * const triggers6[] = {
TIM7_TRGO, NULL,+};
+static const char * const triggers7[] = {
TIM8_TRGO, TIM8_CH1, TIM8_CH2, TIM8_CH3, TIM8_CH4, NULL,+};
+static const char * const triggers8[] = {
TIM9_TRGO, TIM9_CH1, TIM9_CH2, NULL,+};
+static const char * const triggers9[] = {
TIM12_TRGO, TIM12_CH1, TIM12_CH2, NULL,+};
+static const void *triggers_table[] = {
triggers0,triggers1,triggers2,triggers3,triggers4,triggers5,triggers6,triggers7,triggers8,triggers9,+};
What about:
static const char * const triggers[][] = { { TIM1_TRGO, TIM1_CH1, TIM1_CH2, TIM1_CH3, TIM1_CH4, NULL }, { TIM2_TRGO, TIM2_CH1, TIM2_CH2, TIM2_CH3, TIM2_CH4, NULL }, { TIM3_TRGO, TIM3_CH1, TIM3_CH2, TIM3_CH3, TIM3_CH4, NULL }, { TIM4_TRGO, TIM4_CH1, TIM4_CH2, TIM4_CH3, TIM4_CH4, NULL }, { TIM5_TRGO, TIM5_CH1, TIM5_CH2, TIM5_CH3, TIM5_CH4, NULL }, { TIM6_TRGO, NULL }, { TIM7_TRGO, NULL }, { TIM8_TRGO, TIM8_CH1, TIM8_CH2, TIM8_CH3, TIM8_CH4, NULL }, { TIM9_TRGO, TIM9_CH1, TIM9_CH2, NULL }, { TIM12_TRGO, TIM12_CH1, TIM12_CH2, NULL } };
I can't because the second dimension of the array isn't fix. I could have between 2 and 6 elements per row... to create a dual dimension array I would have to add NULL entries like that:
#define MAX_TRIGGERS 6
static const void *triggers_table[][MAX_TRIGGERS] = { { TIM1_TRGO, TIM1_CH1, TIM1_CH2, TIM1_CH3, TIM1_CH4, NULL,}, { TIM2_TRGO, TIM2_CH1, TIM2_CH2, TIM2_CH3, TIM2_CH4, NULL,}, { TIM3_TRGO, TIM3_CH1, TIM3_CH2, TIM3_CH3, TIM3_CH4, NULL,}, { TIM4_TRGO, TIM4_CH1, TIM4_CH2, TIM4_CH3, TIM4_CH4, NULL,}, { TIM5_TRGO, TIM5_CH1, TIM5_CH2, TIM5_CH3, TIM5_CH4, NULL,}, { TIM6_TRGO, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,}, { TIM7_TRGO, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,}, { TIM8_TRGO, TIM8_CH1, TIM8_CH2, TIM8_CH3, TIM8_CH4, NULL,}, { TIM9_TRGO, TIM9_CH1, TIM9_CH2, NULL, NULL, NULL,}, { TIM12_TRGO, TIM12_CH1, TIM12_CH2, NULL, NULL, NULL,}, };
It was just an idea, not a tested implementation.
I don't understand why you have to pad with NULLs, but either way, it looks much better than before and saves lots of lines of code.
I have tested it this morning and it works fine so I will include it in v5. I use NULL as limit when iterate in the table and for table padding too.
If the initializer is shorter than the array then the array will be implicitly zero/NULL padded. I don't think there is any need to type out all the NULLs (not even at -Wall).
Daniel.