Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc_enabled into two functions | From | Marcus Wolf <> | Date | Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:07:20 +0200 |
| |
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@nikanor.nu> >>> --- >>> 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
| |