On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 21:08 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Commit message is somewhat inaccurate...
Yeah, sorry 'bout that.
That's what I get for using a script.
I did write an intro with more complete description.
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c
> > b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c
> > @@ -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?
It tries to standardize the style use and it avoids possible
future checkpatch warnings of:
char foo[] = "bar"
char array could possibly be static const.
There was another use with "%1.1d" somewhere.
The end result is the same, so I don't really care much
if this sort of change is applied or not. The possible
checkpatch message could just be considered noise but
Mike Frysinger seemed to prefer it, so I thought I could
try to accommodate him.
cheers, Joe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
