[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e282e9ec-d42d-f03e-aa8e-918ffefffb1f@smarthome-wolf.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:36:33 +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 v2 06/11] staging: pi433: Split rf69_set_crc_enabled into
two functions
>>
>> rf69 -set/get - action
>> -> rf69_set_crc_enable
>
> No... Simon's name is better. His is shorter and makes more sense.
I disagree. If I am going to implement a new functionality and need to
think about the naming of the function name, every time I need to change
a register setting that's awfull.
I usually have code on one monitor and datasheet on the other. So if I
want to set a bit/reg/whatever, I have the datasheet in front of my
nose. I can easy write the code, if function names refer to the names in
the datasheet and follow a strict naming convention. If the naming
convetion is broken, I need to switch to the header and search manually
for each register, I want to set.
There is so much potential in this young driver, that could be
developed. Would be pitty, if all that wouldn't take place some day.
Marcus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists