On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 02:19:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > are you strongly set on the rf69_read_reg approach or would you > > be open to keep the original approach? (rf69_get_version) > > I think my approach is best but I don't care. Thanks for being so flexible. I'll keep your suggestion at the back of my head and if I come across more scenarios in which rf69_read_reg would be the easiest way, I will gladly send a different patch to make it reality. > > I just want to double-check if this suggestion is taking into > > consideration what was mentioned here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220106210134.GB3416@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > If it is, I'm happy to add it back but I just wanted to confirm it > > first. > > Yes. Keep the error handling. Your way makes the code more complicated > to read. > Agreed. I will add it back. thanks, Paulo A.
