Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc_enabled into two functions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





Am 06.12.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Simon Sandström:
Splits rf69_set_crc_enabled(dev, enabled) into
rf69_enable_crc(dev) and rf69_disable_crc(dev).

Signed-off-by: Simon Sandström <simon@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++--
  drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c     | 18 ++++++------------
  drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.h     |  4 ++--
  3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
index 2ae19ac565d1..614eec7dd904 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/pi433/pi433_if.c
@@ -216,7 +216,16 @@ rf69_set_rx_cfg(struct pi433_device *dev, struct pi433_rx_cfg *rx_cfg)
  			return ret;
  	}
  	SET_CHECKED(rf69_set_adressFiltering(dev->spi, rx_cfg->enable_address_filtering));
-	SET_CHECKED(rf69_set_crc_enable	    (dev->spi, rx_cfg->enable_crc));
+
+	if (rx_cfg->enable_crc == OPTION_ON) {
+		ret = rf69_enable_crc(dev->spi);
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return ret;
+	} else {
+		ret = rf69_disable_crc(dev->spi);
+		if (ret < 0)
+			return ret;
+	}

Why don't you use SET_CHECKED(...)?

I stil don't like this kind of changes - and not using SET_CHECKED makes it even worse, since that further increases code length.

The idea was to have the configuration as compact, as you can see in the receiver config section. It's a pitty that the packet config already needs such a huge number of exceptions due to technical reasons. We shouldn't further extend the numbers of exceptions and shouldn't extend the number of lines for setting a reg.

Initially this function was just like
set_rx_cfg()
{
    SET_CHECKED(...)
    SET_CHECKED(...)
    SET_CHECKED(...)
    SET_CHECKED(...)
}

It should be easy,
* to survey, which chip settings are touched, if set_rx_cfg is called.
* to survey, that all params of the rx_cfg struct are taken care of.

The longer the function gets, the harder it is, to service it.
I really would be happy, if we don't go this way.


Anyway, please keep the naming convention of rf69.c:

rf69 -set/get - action
-> rf69_set_crc_enable

Thanks,

Marcus
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux