[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yh8z5zWfpVKWNYpQ@mail.google.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:07:51 +1300
From: Paulo Miguel Almeida <paulo.miguel.almeida.rodenas@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, realwakka@...il.com,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: pi433: remove rf69_get_flag function resolving
enum conflict
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 09:32:38AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Looks good.
>
> Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
>
Thanks for reviewing my patch Dan.
> > 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
>
> You don't really need to write a long commit message for a commit which
> deletes 69 - 4 = 65 lines. Just say "Remove pointless rf69_get_flag()
> function and call rf69_read_reg() directly. This cleanup removes 65
> lines of code and it more obvious to read."
>
Thanks for the feedback. I swear I don't do that on purpose ... I have always
struggled to be succint tbh. It's just something I'm actively working on...
> > - rf69_get_flag(dev->spi,
> > - rssi_exceeded_threshold));
> > + rf69_read_reg(spi, REG_IRQFLAGS1)
> > + & MASK_IRQFLAGS1_RSSI);
>
> The & character should go on the first line.
>
> rf69_read_reg(spi, REG_IRQFLAGS1) &
> MASK_IRQFLAGS1_RSSI);
>
> But that can be done in a follow on patch if you want. Or you can
> leave it as-is.
>
Noted. this patch was already merged into the staging-testing. I will
send another one fixing it.
Best regards,
Paulo Almeida
Powered by blists - more mailing lists