Re: [patch] drm/amd: cleanup get_mfd_cell_dev()

[walter harms]

Am 25.02.2016 08:47, schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> It's simpler to just use snprintf() to print this to one buffer instead
> of using strcpy() and strcat().  Also using snprintf() is slightly safer
> than using sprintf().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c
> index 9f8cfaa..d6b0bff 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_acp.c
> @@ -240,12 +240,10 @@ static int acp_poweron(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
>  static struct device *get_mfd_cell_dev(const char *device_name, int r)
>  {
>  	char auto_dev_name[25];
> -	char buf[8];
>  	struct device *dev;
>  
> -	sprintf(buf, ".%d.auto", r);
> -	strcpy(auto_dev_name, device_name);
> -	strcat(auto_dev_name, buf);
> +	snprintf(auto_dev_name, sizeof(auto_dev_name),
> +		 "%s.%d.auto", device_name, r);
>  	dev = bus_find_device_by_name(&platform_bus_type, NULL, auto_dev_name);
>  	dev_info(dev, "device %s added to pm domain\n", auto_dev_name);
>  

hi,
i tried to understand what is the base for char auto_dev_name[25]. It is not clear
from these snipped if that is large or small.

(To be aware i assume that
get_mfd_cell_dev("terrible_long_and_Stupid_name",1234567899346712) will never happen
but i could find no reason)

A small comment that explains the magic 25 would be nice.

re,
 wh