Re: [PATCH 5/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum dataMode in rf69_enum.h

[Marcus Wolf]

Am 04.12.2017 um 12:24 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 04:17:25PM +0100, Simon SandstrÃm wrote:
> > Renames enum dataMode and its values packet, continuous, continuousNoSync
> > to enum data_mode and PACKET, CONTINUOUS, CONTINUOUS_NO_SYNC. Fixes
> > checkpatch.pl warnings: "Avoid CamelCase: <dataMode>, <continuousNoSync>".
>
> These names are too generic.  Delete them.  Use DATAMODUL_MODE_PACKET
> and friends directly.
>
> int rf69_set_data_mode(struct spi_device *spi, u8 val)
> {
> 	return WRITE_REG(REG_DATAMODUL, (READ_REG(REG_DATAMODUL) & ~MASK_DATAMODUL_MODE) | val);
> }
>
> Only DATAMODUL_MODE_PACKET is ever used.  There is no need to validate
> the parameters.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter

Hi Dan, hi Simon,

like I wrote a few days ago to Marcin Ciupak, I see two disadvantages in 
doing so.

If you want to go that way, you - as far as I believe - need to alter 
the values in rf69_enum.h, so they carry the corresponding values from 
rf69_reg.h. To avoid confusion, you will need to remove the values from 
rf69_reg.h.
But then you have to keep track of two files (enum.h and reg.h), if you 
want to further develop register access stuff. I would prefer to keep 
all chip/register related values at the same place.

Second there might be the idea of supporting different chips in the 
future (I already thought about).
Then it might be, that DATAMODUL_MODE_PACKET might need an other value.
Therefore, I introduced the "double layer" - enums as labels for the 
user space and defines, containing the values, for the register access.

For closer details, pls. see my long answer to Marcin.

I am not sure, whether simplification of the code like proposed is more 
important, then the disadvatages, I mentioned.

Cheers,

Marcus