Commit message is somewhat inaccurate... On 09/13/10 20:47, Joe Perches wrote: > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]> > --- > 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-i2c" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
