Date:   Sat, 8 Jan 2022 16:36:21 +0000
From:   Sidong Yang <realwakka@gmail.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@gmail.com>,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-staging@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: pi433: move get version func to where all
 other functions are
Message-ID: <20220108163621.GA26654@realwakka>
References: <20220106201430.GA3416@mail.google.com>
 <20220106213325.GA10767@mail.google.com>
 <20220107085343.GP7674@kadam>
 <20220107192438.GB2693@mail.google.com>
 <20220108111910.GA1978@kadam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220108111910.GA1978@kadam>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 02:19:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

Hi, Paul.
Thanks for applying my opinion. And there is one thing to metion.

> On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 08:24:38AM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:53:44AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > Just say:
> > > 
> > > 	retval = rf69_read_reg(spi, REG_VERSION);
> > 
> > atm rf69_read_reg is a static function in rf69.c.
> > 
> 
> I would remove be the static.
> 
> > I do agree that this is technically possible to write the code
> > exactly as you suggested but on the other hand, that would be the only
> > exception to the rule when considering all other higher-level functions
> > provided in the rf69.c
> 
> There may be other functions which will benefit from this later on.  So
> instead of "only" a better word is "first".  Some of those high level
> functions make sense because they are slightly complicated and have
> multiple callers.  But in this case open coding it seems easier to read.
> 
> > 
> > are you strongly set on the rf69_read_reg approach or would you
> > be open to keep the original approach? (rf69_get_version)
> 
> I think my approach is best but I don't care.
> 
> > 
> > > 	if (retval < 0)
> > > 		return retval;
> > > 
> > > Deleting the error handling was a bad style choice.  Also preserve the
> > > error code.
> > >
> > 
> > I just want to double-check if this suggestion is taking into
> > consideration what was mentioned here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220106210134.GB3416@mail.google.com/ 
> > 
> > If it is, I'm happy to add it back but I just wanted to confirm it
> > first.
> 
> Yes.  Keep the error handling.  Your way makes the code more complicated
> to read.

I totally really agree with it.
Because the switch clause under this patch catches error with 'default:'
but it returns '-ENODEV'. I worried that it lost retval from reading
register if it has error.

> 
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>