On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 09:14:40AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > This is a lot of additional complexity for almost no real benefit. > you're right. I will no longer pursue this approach. > > - /* print content read from fifo for debugging purposes */ > > - for (i = 0; i < size; i++) > > - dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "%d - 0x%x\n", i, local_buffer[i + 1]); > > What is wrong with this simple line? > to be honest, I think that 1 register per line isn't the easiest way to read them. Given that print_hex_dump_debug existed and had this horizontal-style priting format, I thought that it would be a better way of visualizing the fifo data. the only problems with print_hex_dump_debug was the absense of device name and string format... so I saw a couple of drivers implementing alternative hex_dump-like functions and thought that pi433 would benefit from similar approach. > > - /* print content written from fifo for debugging purposes */ > > - for (i = 0; i < size; i++) > > - dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "0x%x\n", buffer[i]); if we are keeping this format, I may need to add the register idx to dev_dbg: dev_dbg(&spi->dev, "%d - 0x%x\n", i, buffer[i]); > Again, the original is fine here, why make this so complex? [thinking out loud/brainstorm] I do agree that, for just a single driver, having a method like that seemed unnecessary but do you think it would be a good idea having something like dev_dbg_hex_dump or similar? print_hex_dump_debug has the following limitation: 1) lacks string format 2) doesn't honor dynamic debug flags (other then 'p') 3) doesn't print device driver name and device name > > + rf69_dbg_hex(spi, local_buffer + 1, size, "%s - ", __func__); > > Also, you are using local_buffer here, not buffer, why? > That was a mistake, good catch. > I think the original is just fine, no need to polish something as tiny > as a hex dump for debugging only. > > thanks, > > greg k-h thanks for taking the time to review the patch, I won't pursue this approach anymore. thanks, Paulo Almeida
