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 <si...@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
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
