On Tue, 13 Oct 2026, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: > On 10/13/2026 2:14 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 11:42:00AM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2026, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 11:30:34AM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote: > >>>> snprintf() is on its way out in favour of scnprintf(). Neither of the two > >>>> callers in tpmi_dbgfs_register() looks at the return value, so the > >>>> difference in what the two return does not matter here. > >>> > >>> I believe I asked it already: Why do we care? Do you get any compilation > >>> warning (assuming `make W=1`)? > >> > >> I do care that we've two functions for essentially the same thing and > >> would prefer to have just one that remains (and obviously that would be > >> the c variant). > > > > I see, thanks for the hint, but it's not clear from the commit message. > > Agreed. There is no W=1 warning behind this. It is only about converging > on scnprintf(), as Ilpo explained. Below is a reworded commit message > that says so directly. > > Ilpo, would you prefer that I send a v5 with this change, or are you > fine with updating the commit message when you apply the series? > > --- > platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Use scnprintf() to build the debugfs names > > The kernel has both snprintf() and scnprintf() for formatting into a > fixed size buffer. The preference is to settle on scnprintf() and stop > adding snprintf() users, so that only one of the two remains in use. > > Convert the two callers in tpmi_dbgfs_register(). Neither of them looks > at the return value, so the difference in what the two functions return > does not matter here. > > No functional change intended. > > Suggested-by: Ilpo Järvinen > Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan