It would be good for someone else with rfm69 hardware to test and review this. Thanks.

Why even bother checking if high power is enabled in the disable_boost function? If boost needs to be disabled then it should be disabled in any/all possible cases.

Also, I feel like the code could be even smaller if the high_power property is completely removed in favor of simply using tx_power or similar. Please do correct me if I'm missing something

Why even bother checking if high power is enabled in the disable_boost function? If boost needs to be disabled then it should be disabled in any/all possible cases.

Also, I feel like the code could be even smaller if the high_power property is completely removed in favor of simply using tx_power or similar. Please do correct me if I'm missing something

The reason for the check is that for non HCW boards the RegTestPa1 and RegTestPa2 registers do not exist. See the SX1231 data sheet https://cdn-shop.adafruit.com/product-files/3076/sx1231.pdf.
I put the check for "high_power" in the function so that it only appears once instead of before every call to disable_boost().

Why even bother checking if high power is enabled in the disable_boost function? If boost needs to be disabled then it should be disabled in any/all possible cases.
Also, I feel like the code could be even smaller if the high_power property is completely removed in favor of simply using tx_power or similar. Please do correct me if I'm missing something

The reason for the check is that for non HCW boards the RegTestPa1 and RegTestPa2 registers do not exist. See the SX1231 data sheet https://cdn-shop.adafruit.com/product-files/3076/sx1231.pdf. I put the check for "high_power" in the function so that it only appears once instead of before every call to disable_boost().

Ah okay that makes sense now... Anyways, the changes you've made seem good to me

@jerryneedell disable boost in constructor could just call the disable_boost function instead I think to remove a few extra bytes of code. In fact it probably should be done this way because there is no high_power check in the constructor when disabling boost so for non-HCW boards those operations wont work since they don't have RegTestPa1 and RegTestPa2 registers.

Edit: Actually, since the device state is immediately set to idle in the constructor which in-turn disables boost anyways, the disable boost in the constructor can be completely removed, right?

@jerryneedell disable boost in constructor could just call the disable_boost function instead I think to remove a few extra bytes of code. In fact it probably should be done this way because there is no high_power check in the constructor when disabling boost so for non-HCW boards those operations wont work since they don't have RegTestPa1 and RegTestPa2 registers.

Edit: Actually, since the device state is immediately set to idle in the constructor which in-turn disables boost anyways, the disable boost in the constructor can be completely removed, right?

Agreed! I will remove it from the constructor. Thanks!