Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc_enabled into two functions

[Marcus Wolf]

Am 06.12.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Simon SandstrÃm:
> Splits rf69_set_crc_enabled(dev, enabled) into
> rf69_enable_crc(dev) and rf69_disable_crc(dev).
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon SandstrÃm <simon@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   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