[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171204194240.42rueojkjz7q32hm@kappa.nikanor.nu>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:42:41 +0100
From: Simon Sandström <simon@...anor.nu>
To: Marcus Wolf <marcus.wolf@...rthome-wolf.de>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux@...f-Entwicklungen.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum optionOnOff in
rf69_enum.h
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:22:06PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.12.2017 um 21:15 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> >
> > That's a bad name, because it doesn't just enable it also disables.
> > Please split them.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >
> >
>
> Same applies to all other stuff, that's using optionOnOff:
> rf69_set_sync_enable(optionOn/Off) enables and disbales sync,
> rf69_set_crc_enable(optionOn/Off) enables and disables crc,
> ...
>
> In my opinion, if we want perfect clarity, we should stay with optionOnOff.
> If we are ok, if rf69_set_sync_enable(false) disables sync,
> in my opinion, we also have to be ok, if rf69_set_amp_X_enable(false)
> disables the amp.
>
> Cheers,
> Marcus
Hi,
I agree with Dan. rf69_enable_sync() / rf69_disable_sync() is clear. If
there are more functions like this (e.g. for crc) then we'll just split
those functions as well.
If you really want one single function for enabling/disabling then I
think that you need to find a better name. Something like
rf69_set_sync_operation(bool), rf69_set_crc_operation(bool), etc.
Regards,
Simon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists