>> >> rf69 -set/get - action >> -> rf69_set_crc_enable > > No... Simon's name is better. His is shorter and makes more sense.
I disagree. If I am going to implement a new functionality and need to think about the naming of the function name, every time I need to change a register setting that's awfull.
I usually have code on one monitor and datasheet on the other. So if I want to set a bit/reg/whatever, I have the datasheet in front of my nose. I can easy write the code, if function names refer to the names in the datasheet and follow a strict naming convention. If the naming convetion is broken, I need to switch to the header and search manually for each register, I want to set.
There is so much potential in this young driver, that could be developed. Would be pitty, if all that wouldn't take place some day.
Marcus
