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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
