lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc_enabled into two functions
From
Date


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(...)?

I stil don't like this kind of changes - and not using SET_CHECKED makes
it even worse, since that further increases code length.

The idea was to have the configuration as compact, as you can see in the
receiver config section. It's a pitty that the packet config already
needs such a huge number of exceptions due to technical reasons. We
shouldn't further extend the numbers of exceptions and shouldn't extend
the number of lines for setting a reg.

Initially this function was just like
set_rx_cfg()
{
SET_CHECKED(...)
SET_CHECKED(...)
SET_CHECKED(...)
SET_CHECKED(...)
}

It should be easy,
* to survey, which chip settings are touched, if set_rx_cfg is called.
* to survey, that all params of the rx_cfg struct are taken care of.

The longer the function gets, the harder it is, to service it.
I really would be happy, if we don't go this way.


Anyway, please keep the naming convention of rf69.c:

rf69 -set/get - action
-> rf69_set_crc_enable

Thanks,

Marcus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-06 10:06    [W:1.177 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site