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 11:05:22 +0200 |
| |
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
| |