staging: pi433: #define shift constants in rf69.c
PATCH 1/1 staging: pi433: #define shift constants in rf69.c
This patch completes TODO improvements in rf69.c to change shift constants to a define.
--- drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c | 4 ++-- drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_registers.h | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +2 -2
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi) currentValue =READ_REG (REG_DATAMODUL ); -switch (currentValue &MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE >>3 ) {// TODO improvement: change 3 to define +switch (currentValue &MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE >>SHIFT_DATAMODUL_MODE ) {case DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE_OOK :return OOK ;case DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE_FSK :return FSK ;default :return undefined;
@@ -409,7 +409,7 @@ enum lnaGain rf69_get_lna_gain(struct spi_device *spi) currentValue =READ_REG (REG_LNA ); -switch (currentValue &MASK_LNA_CURRENT_GAIN >>3 ) {// improvement: change 3 to define +switch (currentValue &MASK_LNA_CURRENT_GAIN >>SHIFT_LNA_CURRENT_GAIN ) {case LNA_GAIN_AUTO :return automatic;case LNA_GAIN_MAX :return max;case LNA_GAIN_MAX_MINUS_6 :return maxMinus6;
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_registers.h +4 -0
@@ -121,6 +121,8 @@#define OPMODE_MODE_RECEIVE 0x10/* RegDataModul */ +#define SHIFT_DATAMODUL_MODE 0x03 +#define MASK_DATAMODUL_MODE 0x06#define MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE 0x18#define MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_SHAPE 0x03
@@ -234,6 +236,8 @@*/ /* RegLna (0x18) */ +#define SHIFT_LNA_CURRENT_GAIN 0x03 +#define MASK_LNA_ZIN 0x80#define MASK_LNA_CURRENT_GAIN 0x38#define MASK_LNA_GAIN 0x07
Signature · 1 line
2.15.0
Quoted 14 lines · Joshua Abraham
This patch completes TODO improvements in
rf69.cto change shift constants to a define.Signed-off-by Joshua Abraham <[email protected]>--- drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c | 4 ++-- drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_registers.h | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +0
-0
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi) · line 105
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +1
-1@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi) currentValue =READ_REG (REG_DATAMODUL ); -switch (currentValue &MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE >>3 ) {// TODO improvement: change 3 to define +switch (currentValue &MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE >>SHIFT_DATAMODUL_MODE ) {
You've send a few of mechanical patches without waiting for feedback and you should probably slow down...
The first thing to notice is that the original code is probably buggy and needs parenthesis.
switch ((currentValue & MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE) >> 3) {But that still doesn't fix the problem that x18 >> 3 is never going to equal to DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE_OOK which is 0x8... So there are a couple bugs here.
The line is over 80 characters, so checkpatch will complain about your patch. Please run checkpatch.pl on all your patches. Really, I hate all the naming here... Surely we can think of a better name than MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE? Normally the "MASK" and "SHIFT" part of the name go at the end instead of the start.
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi)
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +2
-0/* RegDataModul */ +#define SHIFT_DATAMODUL_MODE 0x03 +#define MASK_DATAMODUL_MODE 0x06
Why did you add a blank line? Don't use hex values for shifting, use normal numbers. The 0x3 is indented too far.
Anyway, take your time and really think about patches before you send them. Normally, I write a patch, then wait overnight, then review it and again in the morning before I send it.
regards,
dan carpenter
Hello everybody!
Concerning the naming:
======================
When writing the rf69.c it wasn't intended to write a driver for Linux. This file was written at a time, where the complete controlling of Pi433 was implemented in the application. Therefore it is written in a completely different coding style.
Never the less - except from MASK and SHIFT, these names 100% - or let's
better say 97% comply with the naming of the registers and the bits you
will find in the RFM69 data sheet. I imported the table from datasheet to start the reg.h file If you are maintaining the function/features of the code (working with the data sheet) that helps a lot.
So in my opinion - if desired - we should change from
MASK_registername_bit(s)name
to
registername_bit(s)name_MASK
but we should keep register and bit(s)names untouched.
Regarding the long line:
========================
If someone is fixing a bug on a certain line, I would strongly prefer not to touch the long line, just to please checkpatch.
In general for sure we should fix the long lines everywhere, it can be done without reducing readability. But it should be done as a whole. In rf69.c there are constructions, that appear over and over again, because everything over there deals with register access, thus always doing the same stuff in a slightly different way. In my opinion there should be one kind of coding, that should be used for all similar lines.
If the functionality needs service, I would hate to have the same
functionality implemented in several different styles.
At the moment I am recovering from a surgery of my back that was
necessary due to a disease at my discs that started several months
ago. So at the moment it stil is hard for me to sit at the desk for a longer time.
Yesterday I started to review all driver mails I got in the last two months. There were several attempts to fix style problems as a whole. Up to now, I haven't checked, why those patches haven't been accepted.
I'll proceed checking all that stuff within the next week(s).
Regarding the bit shift:
========================
Indeed there is a bug. I already discussed that topic long time ago. Most probably I even sent a fix with a completly different implementation that time, but it was rejected due to missformated patch. I'll try to pass in a new patch today or tomorrow.
By the way one question:
========================
If I for example want to send one patch per week and the patch of the third week impacts a line, that was already impacted in the patch of the first week, should the patch in week three be a diff to master or a diff to patch one?
Cheers,
Marcus
Am 08.11.2017 um 13:52 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
Quoted 54 lines · Joshua Abraham
Quoted 14 lines
This patch completes TODO improvements in
rf69.cto change shift constants to a define.Signed-off-by Joshua Abraham <[email protected]>--- drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c | 4 ++-- drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_registers.h | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +0
-0drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi) · line 105
Quoted 5 lines
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +1
-1@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi) currentValue =READ_REG (REG_DATAMODUL ); -switch (currentValue &MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE >>3 ) {// TODO improvement: change 3 to define +switch (currentValue &MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE >>SHIFT_DATAMODUL_MODE ) {You've send a few of mechanical patches without waiting for feedback and you should probably slow down...
The first thing to notice is that the original code is probably buggy and needs parenthesis.
switch ((currentValue & MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE) >> 3) {But that still doesn't fix the problem that x18 >> 3 is never going to equal to
DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE_OOKwhich is0x8... So there are a couple bugs here.The line is over 80 characters, so checkpatch will complain about your patch. Please run checkpatch.pl on all your patches. Really, I hate all the naming here... Surely we can think of a better name than
MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE? Normally the "MASK" and "SHIFT" part of the name go at the end instead of the start.drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi)
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +2
-0/* RegDataModul */ +#define SHIFT_DATAMODUL_MODE 0x03 +#define MASK_DATAMODUL_MODE 0x06Why did you add a blank line? Don't use hex values for shifting, use normal numbers. The
0x3is indented too far.Anyway, take your time and really think about patches before you send them. Normally, I write a patch, then wait overnight, then review it and again in the morning before I send it.
regards,
dan carpenter
Quoted 16 lines · Dan Carpenter
Quoted 15 lines · Joshua Abraham
This patch completes TODO improvements in
rf69.cto change shift constants to a define.Signed-off-by Joshua Abraham <[email protected]>--- drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c | 4 ++-- drivers/staging/pi433/rf69_registers.h | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +0
-0@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi)
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi) · line 105
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +1
-1currentValue =READ_REG (REG_DATAMODUL ); -switch (currentValue &MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE >>3 ) {// TODO improvement: change 3 to define +switch (currentValue &MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE >>SHIFT_DATAMODUL_MODE ) {You've send a few of mechanical patches without waiting for feedback and you should probably slow down...
Understood. I am just excited about submitting patches.
Quoted 9 lines
The first thing to notice is that the original code is probably buggy and needs parenthesis.
switch ((currentValue & MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE) >> 3) {But that still doesn't fix the problem that x18 >> 3 is never going to equal to
DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE_OOKwhich is0x8... So there are a couple bugs here.
Quoted 6 lines
The line is over 80 characters, so checkpatch will complain about your patch. Please run checkpatch.pl on all your patches. Really, I hate all the naming here... Surely we can think of a better name than
MASK_DATAMODUL_MODULATION_TYPE? Normally the "MASK" and "SHIFT" part of the name go at the end instead of the start.
I named the define to be consistent with the extant code, but I agree that the names could be better.
Quoted 8 lines
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c enum modulation rf69_get_modulation(struct spi_device *spi)
Quoted 4 lines
drivers/staging/pi433/rf69.c +2
-0/* RegDataModul */ +#define SHIFT_DATAMODUL_MODE 0x03 +#define MASK_DATAMODUL_MODE 0x06Why did you add a blank line? Don't use hex values for shifting, use normal numbers. The
0x3is indented too far.
I added the blank line to separate shifts from masks, but since the shift will only be performed on the mask I supposed it isn't needed.
Quoted 7 lines
Anyway, take your time and really think about patches before you send them. Normally, I write a patch, then wait overnight, then review it and again in the morning before I send it.
regards,
dan carpenter
Thanks for the criticism. I will be better.