On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:28:04 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 09/18/2012 07:15 PM, Bo Shen wrote: > > I add the debug info, and it give the following error without this patch. > > > > --<8---------------------------------- > > adap->name = i2c-gpio-1 > > i2c-gpio i2c.2: using pins 30 (SDA) and 31 (SCL) > > adap->name = i2c-gpio-1 > > i2c-gpio: probe of i2c.3 failed with error -16 > > -->8---------------------------------- > > > > With this patch, it successfully registered. > > --<8---------------------------------- > > adap->name = i2c-gpio0 > > i2c-gpio i2c.2: using pins 30 (SDA) and 31 (SCL) > > adap->name = i2c-gpio1 > > i2c-gpio i2c.3: using pins 90 (SDA) and 91 (SCL) > > -->8---------------------------------- > > Yes, that explains why the registration fails, but not why this patch is > the correct solution to the problem. > > The problematic code appears to be: > > snprintf(adap->name, sizeof(adap->name), "i2c-gpio%d", pdev->id); > > Instead, I think that should be something more like: > > adap->name = dev_name(&pdev->dev); strlcpy(adap->name, dev_name(&pdev->dev), sizeof(adap->name)) if anything, as adap->name is a buffer, not a pointer. > or perhaps: > > if (pdev->dev.of_node) > /* named will be based on DT node name */ > adap->name = dev_name(&pdev->dev); > else > snprintf(adap->name, sizeof(adap->name), "i2c-gpio%d", pdev->id); > > ? -- Jean Delvare -- 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
