Hi, On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:23:17AM -0600, Jean Sacren wrote: > From: Alexander Aring <alex.ar...@gmail.com> > Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 09:26:57 +0200 > > Hi Alex, > > Thank you very much for the feedback. > > > the at86rf230 driver supports several at86rf2xx chips. You split the > > at86rf212_set_channel which is at86rf212 specific in two function which > > are named at86rf230_foo. > > I didn't "split" at86rf212_set_channel() in two functions. I spliced > those two sections of code and made at86rf212_set_channel() far > succinct and easy to read. >
yes, but this driver supports more than one chip and it's easier to read if we have one channel_set function for each chip type. Note you also named the specific channel_set function to a another at86rf230_foo function which is at86rf212 specific only. Sorry that will confuse all the people who will ever read this code. There is a at86rf230_ops and at86rf212_ops struct. The channel_set function it's much easier to have only one callback for each struct, otherwise you have 4 different channel_set functions and nobody knows for which at86rf2xx type that function is for. > > Sorry, but I think we should not do this. One reason is that the code is > > much easier to read when we have one channel_set callback for at86rf23x > > and at86rf212 chips. > > If you use one channel_set callback as before the change, how would you > overcome the redundancy? > There is no redundancy, sorry. There would be a redundancy if two chiptypes like at86rf231 and at86rf212 needs some code of this callback and you can do some codesharing, but you can't do that there. - Alex ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Time is money. Stop wasting it! Get your web API in 5 minutes. www.restlet.com/download http://p.sf.net/sfu/restlet _______________________________________________ Linux-zigbee-devel mailing list Linux-zigbee-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-zigbee-devel
