Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] sysinfo: rcar3: Use int instead of char for revision

[Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@collabora.com>]

On Friday, July 14, 2023 1:33:01 P.M. EDT Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 7/14/23 18:43, Detlev Casanova wrote:
> > To be used with the sysinfo command, revision values must be considered
> > as integers, not chars as some boards will implement BOARD_REVISION_*
> > and might use numbers greater than 9.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@collabora.com>
> > ---
> > 
> >   drivers/sysinfo/rcar3.c | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> >   1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/sysinfo/rcar3.c b/drivers/sysinfo/rcar3.c
> > index 7b127986da7..450a4c26773 100644
> > --- a/drivers/sysinfo/rcar3.c
> > +++ b/drivers/sysinfo/rcar3.c
> > @@ -68,90 +68,110 @@ static void sysinfo_rcar_parse(struct
> > sysinfo_rcar_priv *priv)> 
> >   	bool salvator_xs = false;
> >   	bool ebisu_4d = false;
> >   	bool condor_i = false;
> > 
> > -	char rev_major = '?';
> > -	char rev_minor = '?';
> > +	char model[64];
> > +	char rev[4] = "?.?";
> > +	u8 rev_major = 0;
> > +	u8 rev_minor = 0;
> > 
> >   	switch (board_id) {
> >   	
> >   	case BOARD_SALVATOR_XS:
> >   		salvator_xs = true;
> >   		fallthrough;
> >   	
> >   	case BOARD_SALVATOR_X:
> > +		snprintf(model, sizeof(model),
> > +			 "Renesas Salvator-X%s board", salvator_xs ? 
"S" : "");
> > 
> >   		if (!(board_rev & ~1)) { /* Only rev 0 and 1 is valid 
*/
> > 
> > -			rev_major = '1';
> > -			rev_minor = '0' + (board_rev & BIT(0));
> > +			rev_major = 1;
> > +			rev_minor = board_rev & BIT(0);
> > +			snprintf(rev, sizeof(rev), "%u.%u", 
rev_major, rev_minor);
> > 
> >   		}
> > 
> > -		snprintf(priv->boardmodel, sizeof(priv->boardmodel),
> > -			 "Renesas Salvator-X%s board rev %c.%c",
> > -			 salvator_xs ? "S" : "", rev_major, 
rev_minor);
> > +
> > +		snprintf(priv->boardmodel, sizeof(priv->boardmodel), 
"%s rev %s",
> > +			 model, rev);
> 
> Is there really no way to do this with single snprintf() call instead of
> two snprintf() calls ?

I find it more readable like this, as opposed to have an snprintf in the if and 
one in an else block for each switch case.