Re: [PATCH v2] staging: pi433: move get version func to where all other functions are

Sidong Yang
2022-01-08T16:36:31Z

On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 02:19:10PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

Hi, Paul.
Thanks for applying my opinion. And there is one thing to metion.

> On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 08:24:38AM +1300, Paulo Miguel Almeida wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:53:44AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > Just say:
> > >
> > > retval = rf69_read_reg(spi, REG_VERSION);
> >
> > atm rf69_read_reg is a static function in rf69.c.
> >
>
> I would remove be the static.
>
> > I do agree that this is technically possible to write the code
> > exactly as you suggested but on the other hand, that would be the only
> > exception to the rule when considering all other higher-level functions
> > provided in the rf69.c
>
> There may be other functions which will benefit from this later on. So
> instead of "only" a better word is "first". Some of those high level
> functions make sense because they are slightly complicated and have
> multiple callers. But in this case open coding it seems easier to read.
>
> >
> > are you strongly set on the rf69_read_reg approach or would you
> > be open to keep the original approach? (rf69_get_version)
>
> I think my approach is best but I don't care.
>
> >
> > > if (retval < 0)
> > > return retval;
> > >
> > > Deleting the error handling was a bad style choice. Also preserve the
> > > error code.
> > >
> >
> > I just want to double-check if this suggestion is taking into
> > consideration what was mentioned here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220106210134.GB3416@mail.google.com/
> >
> > If it is, I'm happy to add it back but I just wanted to confirm it
> > first.
>
> Yes. Keep the error handling. Your way makes the code more complicated
> to read.

I totally really agree with it.
Because the switch clause under this patch catches error with 'default:'
but it returns '-ENODEV'. I worried that it lost retval from reading
register if it has error.

>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>