>>
>> rf69 -set/get - action
>> -> rf69_set_crc_enable
>
> No... Simon's name is better. His is shorter and makes more sense.
I disagree. If I am going to implement a new functionality and need to
think about the naming of the function name, every time I need to change
a register setting that's awfull.
I usually have code on one monitor and datasheet on the other. So if I
want to set a bit/reg/whatever, I have the datasheet in front of my
nose. I can easy write the code, if function names refer to the names in
the datasheet and follow a strict naming convention. If the naming
convetion is broken, I need to switch to the header and search manually
for each register, I want to set.
There is so much potential in this young driver, that could be
developed. Would be pitty, if all that wouldn't take place some day.
Marcus
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
