Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] hwmon: (lm90) Reject channel 2 on chips with only one remote sensor

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Incorrect format specifier '%d' used for 'u32' variable.
--

commit dbab4ee8e2d548c97ffd31b1a3d640af352905b1
Author: Flaviu Nistor <flaviu.nistor@gmail.com>

hwmon: (lm90) Reject channel 2 on chips with only one remote sensor

This commit validates firmware channel definitions against chip capabilities
and returns -EINVAL when channel 2 is configured on devices with 1 remote
channel.

> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> index 1c603272538aa..3faeb2c6ab01b 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/lm90.c
> @@ -2712,6 +2712,11 @@ static int lm90_probe_channel(struct i2c_client *client,
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (id == 2 && !(data->flags & LM90_HAVE_TEMP3)) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "channel %d is not supported for this chip in %pfw\n", id, child);

[Severity: Low]
Does this code use the correct format specifier for the id variable?

While passing an unsigned 32-bit integer to a %d specifier works for small
values (since id is guaranteed to be exactly 2 on this path), it is
semantically incorrect for a u32 variable and violates format string
contracts, leading to potential compiler warnings (-Wformat).

Would it be better to use %u as the format specifier for a u32?

> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
>  	err = fwnode_property_read_string(child, "label", &data->channel_label[id]);

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260826184750.4798-1-flaviu.nistor@gmail.com?part=2