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 :-)
> + };
> + 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.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
