linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum dataMode in rf69

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <74a6813f-e7ad-e0e8-ca3d-392689664894@smarthome-wolf.de>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 21:31:06 +0200
From:   Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        linux@...f-Entwicklungen.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum dataMode in rf69_enum.h

>> Second there might be the idea of supporting different chips in the future
>> (I already thought about).
> 
> Linux style is never to write code for the future.

Ok. I didn't know.
To be honest, I already started writing code, also supporting the rf12 
some time ago, thus programming a rfxx.c, but never finished, due to 
lack of time.
For getting stuff started, I need to focus on rf69 and pi433.

A few monthes ago, Hope RF (the producer of those chips) proposed me a 
new chip (can't remember the number - maybe 95), that also supports 
loraWan. Seems like there will be even more interesting chips coming up, 
that could be controlled with a similar interface implementation.

>> Then it might be, that DATAMODUL_MODE_PACKET might need an other value.
> 
> That's future code so we can delete that sentence for now.

With the rule above, you are absolutely right. But we now spend time, to 
remove an currently non necessary feature ("double layer"), which will 
take time to re-introduce as soon, as someone wants to support a second 
chip.
Isn't that double-work and a thus a pitty?

Cheers,
Marcus