Re: [Patch v3 2/2] memory: tegra: make sid and broadcast regions optional

[Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>]

>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     static inline u32 mc_readl(const struct tegra_mc *mc, unsigned long offset)
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c
>>>>>> index 1b3183951bfe..716582255eeb 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c
>>>>>> @@ -26,20 +26,16 @@
>>>>>>     static int tegra186_mc_probe(struct tegra_mc *mc)
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>          struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(mc->dev);
>>>>>> +     struct resource *res;
>>>>>>          unsigned int i;
>>>>>> -     char name[8];
>>>>>> +     char name[14];
>>>>>
>>>>> How is it relevant? I don't see this being used in your diff.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did this change for below warning coming with 'W=1'.
>>>>
>>>> ../drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c: In function tegra186_mc_probe:
>>>> ../drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c:51:49: warning: %u directive output
>>>> may be truncated writing between 1 and 10 bytes into a region of size 6
>>>> [8;;https://gc
>>>> c.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wformat-truncation=-Wformat-truncation=8;;]
>>>>       51 |                 snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "ch%u", i);
>>>>          |                                                 ^~
>>>> ../drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c:51:46: note: directive argument in
>>>> the range [0, 4294967294]
>>>>       51 |                 snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "ch%u", i);
>>>>          |                                              ^~~~~~
>>>> ../drivers/memory/tegra/tegra186.c:51:17: note: snprintf output between
>>>> 4 and 13 bytes into a destination of size 8
>>>>       51 |                 snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "ch%u", i);
>>>>          |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> I asked how this is relevant to this change and you answer there is a
>>> warning. If the warning was there, your answer is really just deflecting
>>> the topic, so obviously this is new warning. Which part of code uses
>>> longer name?
>>>
>>> BTW, really, such answers do not make review of your code smoother.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>
>> Apologies for not explaining it earlier.
>>
>> I increased the buffer size to suppress a static check warning in the
>> existing code due to big range of 'unsigned int i', if copied to small
>> name buffer.
>>
>> Seems like the warning is harmless as the maximum value of num_channels
>> is 16. I will remove it and keep the buffer size as 8 in the next
>> version.
>>
> 
> That's not the point. For the third time: how is it relevant to this
> change here? Was or was not the warning before?
> 

This is not relevant to the change here. The warning was before as well.

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>