Hi Andy,
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 07:13:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 04:57:32PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > Add a test for the %pfw printk modifier using software nodes.
>
> > +static void __init fwnode_pointer(void)
> > +{
> > + const struct software_node softnodes[] = {
> > + { .name = "first", },
> > + { .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], },
> > + { .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], },
> > + { NULL /* Guardian */ },
>
> Comma is still here :-)
Oops. I ended up removing the comma in a wrong patch which wasn't submitted
to the list. Will fix for v6.
>
> > + };
>
> > + test(full_name_second, "%pfw",
> > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3]));
> > + test(full_name, "%pfw",
> > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2]));
> > + test(full_name, "%pfwf",
> > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2]));
> > + test(second_name, "%pfwP",
> > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3]));
> > + test(third_name, "%pfwP",
> > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2]));
>
> I have another thought about these. The test cases will fail in either of
> adding, inserting or removing items in softnodes array. So, using the above
> "protective" scheme doesn't bring any value except making readability worse.
Agreed, to be addressed in v6.
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
[email protected]
