Am 06.12.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:05:22AM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
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(...)?
Marcus, please don't introduce new uses of SET_CHECKED(). It has a
hidden return in it which is against kernel style and introduces very
predictable and avoidable bugs. For example, in probe().
Ah ok.
Thanks for clarifiytion!
What a pitty - another bunch of extra lines of code...
Or is there an other construction, allowing for one line per register
change? Something like
ret = rf69_set_xyz(...); if (ret) return ret;
ret = rf69_set_abc(...); if (ret) return ret;
is pretty ugly and voids the style guide...
Thx,
Marcus
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
