From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
To: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Hans de Goede <hansg@kernel.org>,
David E Box <david.e.box@linux.intel.com>,
platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 17/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Use scnprintf() to build the debugfs names
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 12:14:51 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <as32iyeK1okylcYI@ashevche-desk.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <24aaf825-ae8b-b19d-4f7f-d5fedc5bcd44@linux.intel.com>
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.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-13 9:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-06 18:30 [PATCH v4 00/20] Decouple PCI and auxbus details from Intel TPMI driver Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 01/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Use static strings for the feature device names Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 02/20] platform/x86/intel/vsec: Pass a struct device to intel_vsec_set_mapping() Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 03/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Remove unused vsec_dev from intel_tpmi_pm_feature Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 04/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Get tpmi_info directly from the parent device Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 05/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Keep the feature resources in intel_tpmi_info Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 06/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Describe a TPMI instance by its two devices Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 07/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Drop unused arg from tpmi_set_control_base() Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 08/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Do not assume TPMI is enumerated from PCI Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 09/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Split out enumeration independent init and exit Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 10/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Split off the PCI VSEC enumeration Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 11/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Include the headers tpmi_common.c relies on Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 12/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Turn TPMI_GET_SINGLE_ENTRY_SIZE() into a function Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 13/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Use guard() for tpmi_dev_lock in the status read Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 14/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Use scope based cleanup in the memory dump Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 15/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Build the TPMI control words in one expression Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 16/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Use DEFINE_SHOW_STORE_ATTRIBUTE() for mem_write Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 17/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Use scnprintf() to build the debugfs names Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-12 20:10 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-10-13 8:42 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2026-10-13 9:14 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 18/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Use DEFINE_RES_MEM() for the feature resources Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 19/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Declare the loop counters in their loops Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
2026-10-06 18:30 ` [PATCH v4 20/20] platform/x86/intel/tpmi: Describe the device creation policy on the function Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=as32iyeK1okylcYI@ashevche-desk.local \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@intel.com \
--cc=david.e.box@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hansg@kernel.org \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®