Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum dataMode in rf69_enum.h | From | Marcus Wolf <> | Date | Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:12:52 +0200 |
| |
Am 04.12.2017 um 12:24 schrieb Dan Carpenter: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 04:17:25PM +0100, Simon Sandström wrote: >> Renames enum dataMode and its values packet, continuous, continuousNoSync >> to enum data_mode and PACKET, CONTINUOUS, CONTINUOUS_NO_SYNC. Fixes >> checkpatch.pl warnings: "Avoid CamelCase: <dataMode>, <continuousNoSync>". > > These names are too generic. Delete them. Use DATAMODUL_MODE_PACKET > and friends directly. > > int rf69_set_data_mode(struct spi_device *spi, u8 val) > { > return WRITE_REG(REG_DATAMODUL, (READ_REG(REG_DATAMODUL) & ~MASK_DATAMODUL_MODE) | val); > } > > Only DATAMODUL_MODE_PACKET is ever used. There is no need to validate > the parameters. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
Hi Dan, hi Simon,
like I wrote a few days ago to Marcin Ciupak, I see two disadvantages in doing so.
If you want to go that way, you - as far as I believe - need to alter the values in rf69_enum.h, so they carry the corresponding values from rf69_reg.h. To avoid confusion, you will need to remove the values from rf69_reg.h. But then you have to keep track of two files (enum.h and reg.h), if you want to further develop register access stuff. I would prefer to keep all chip/register related values at the same place.
Second there might be the idea of supporting different chips in the future (I already thought about). Then it might be, that DATAMODUL_MODE_PACKET might need an other value. Therefore, I introduced the "double layer" - enums as labels for the user space and defines, containing the values, for the register access.
For closer details, pls. see my long answer to Marcin.
I am not sure, whether simplification of the code like proposed is more important, then the disadvatages, I mentioned.
Cheers,
Marcus
| |