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 <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(...)?
>
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().
> 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
No... Simon's name is better. His is shorter and makes more sense. :(
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
