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.
> 
> OK, fixing the warning is always a good idea, but this *must* be always
> separate patch, with its own explanation and rationale, and warning message.
> 

Sure, will submit a separate patch for the warning and spin a v4 for 
this patch series after incorporating all review comments.

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>