Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: sun50i: Fix build warning around snprint()

[Viresh Kumar]

On 23-04-24, 11:38, Julian Calaby wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 1:31 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > index 30e5c337611c..cd50cea16a87 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c
> > @@ -208,7 +206,7 @@ static int sun50i_cpufreq_get_efuse(void)
> >  static int sun50i_cpufreq_nvmem_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> >         int *opp_tokens;
> > -       char name[MAX_NAME_LEN];
> > +       char name[] = "speedXXXXXXXXXXX"; /* Integers can take 11 chars max */
> 
> Would it make sense to just set a static length for the string here,
> say 17-20 characters and add a comment explaining the number, say: /*
> "speed" + 11 chars for the int */
> 
> The string constant, while it'll probably be optimised away, seems
> weird and wasteful.

The counting goes wrong (I have done it in the past) sometimes and so
I like to explicitly reserve space like this, it also makes it look
cleaner, i.e. how the eventual string will be named.

-- 
viresh