Re: [PATCH 05/25] drivers/i2c: Use static const char arrays

[Joe Perches <joe-6d6DIl74uiNBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>]

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 21:08 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> Commit message is  somewhat inaccurate...

Yeah, sorry 'bout that.
That's what I get for using a script.
I did write an intro with more complete description.

> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c
> > @@ -881,7 +881,7 @@ stu300_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	bus_nr = pdev->id;
> > -	clk_name[3] += (char)bus_nr;
> > +	sprintf(clk_name, "I2C%c", '0' + bus_nr);
> I'm guessing that there are never more than a couple of these.
> Why is this method a better bet than just putting %d?

It tries to standardize the style use and it avoids possible
future checkpatch warnings of:
	char foo[] = "bar"
char array could possibly be static const.

There was another use with "%1.1d" somewhere.

The end result is the same, so I don't really care much
if this sort of change is applied or not.  The possible
checkpatch message could just be considered noise but
Mike Frysinger seemed to prefer it, so I thought I could
try to accommodate him.

cheers, Joe