Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:42:53 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: sun50i: Fix build warning around snprint() |
| |
On 23-04-24, 11:38, Julian Calaby wrote: > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:31 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c > > index 30e5c337611c..cd50cea16a87 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c > > @@ -208,7 +206,7 @@ static int sun50i_cpufreq_get_efuse(void) > > static int sun50i_cpufreq_nvmem_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > { > > int *opp_tokens; > > - char name[MAX_NAME_LEN]; > > + char name[] = "speedXXXXXXXXXXX"; /* Integers can take 11 chars max */ > > Would it make sense to just set a static length for the string here, > say 17-20 characters and add a comment explaining the number, say: /* > "speed" + 11 chars for the int */ > > The string constant, while it'll probably be optimised away, seems > weird and wasteful.
The counting goes wrong (I have done it in the past) sometimes and so I like to explicitly reserve space like this, it also makes it look cleaner, i.e. how the eventual string will be named.
-- viresh
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |