Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754758AbdLFKHb (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 05:07:31 -0500 Received: from dd39320.kasserver.com ([85.13.155.146]:47456 "EHLO dd39320.kasserver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751851AbdLFKH2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 05:07:28 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc_enabled into two functions To: Dan Carpenter Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Simon_Sandstr=c3=b6m?= , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux@Wolf-Entwicklungen.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20171205220849.5486-1-simon@nikanor.nu> <20171205220849.5486-7-simon@nikanor.nu> <20171206093703.bgs32doff7svvdf5@mwanda> From: Marcus Wolf Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:07:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171206093703.bgs32doff7svvdf5@mwanda> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: de-DE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1916 Lines: 61 Am 06.12.2017 um 11:37 schrieb Dan Carpenter: > 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 >>> --- >>> 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(). Ah ok. Thanks for clarifiytion! What a pitty - another bunch of extra lines of code... Or is there an other construction, allowing for one line per register change? Something like ret = rf69_set_xyz(...); if (ret) return ret; ret = rf69_set_abc(...); if (ret) return ret; is pretty ugly and voids the style guide... Thx, Marcus