Re: [PATCH bluetooth-next 2/5] at86rf230: make at86rf230_async_error inline

[Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:01:18AM +0000, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On 15/12/14 09:39, Alexander Aring wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 08:29:26AM +0000, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> >>Hello.
> >>
> >>On 15/12/14 00:20, Alexander Aring wrote:
> >>>This patch makes the at86rf230_async_error inline. This function is
> >>>small enough to handle inline.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>
> >>>---
> >>>  drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c | 2 +-
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> >>>b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> >>>index 4e983b3..430d3bd 100644
> >>>--- a/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> >>>+++ b/drivers/net/ieee802154/at86rf230.c
> >>>@@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ at86rf230_async_error_recover(void *context)
> >>>  	ieee802154_wake_queue(lp->hw);
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>>-static void
> >>>+static inline void
> >>>  at86rf230_async_error(struct at86rf230_local *lp,
> >>>  		      struct at86rf230_state_change *ctx, int rc)
> >>>  {
> >>
> >>Hopefully we would not need this error function often enough to have a
> >>real
> >>benefit for inline but with only two function calls it should be small
> >>enough anyway for inline.
> >
> >With Werner Almesberger words "If this fails something goes really wrong
> >with your spi controller and you can only save that the kernel doesn't
> >run amok" or something like that.
> >
> >I also heard that we don't need to check errors for the spi calls.
> >
> >For now I don't know what happens if an error occurs here, I activate
> >the irq again (if disabled before) and try to run some TRX_OFF to
> >RX_AACK_ON recover, so we can receive some frames again.
> >
> >But I think it depends on "error case" if this mechanism really helps.
> >
> >Nevertheless, still better than doing nothing.
> 
> Sure, handling the case is good. Just wondered about the need for inline
> here but as I wrote with two calls this functions is small enough I would
> say.
> 

ok. :-)

- Alex