Re: [PATCH 05/25] drivers/i2c: Use static const char arrays

[Jonathan Cameron]

 Commit message is  somewhat inaccurate...

On 09/13/10 20:47, Joe Perches wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c
> index 495be45..2f7c09c 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c
> @@ -871,7 +871,7 @@ stu300_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	struct resource *res;
>  	int bus_nr;
>  	int ret = 0;
> -	char clk_name[] = "I2C0";
> +	char clk_name[sizeof("I2Cx")];
>  
>  	dev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct stu300_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!dev) {
> @@ -881,7 +881,7 @@ stu300_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	}
>  
>  	bus_nr = pdev->id;
> -	clk_name[3] += (char)bus_nr;
> +	sprintf(clk_name, "I2C%c", '0' + bus_nr);
I'm guessing that there are never more than a couple of these.
Why is this method a better bet than just putting %d?
>  	dev->clk = clk_get(&pdev->dev, clk_name);
>  	if (IS_ERR(dev->clk)) {
>  		ret = PTR_ERR(dev->clk);

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/