On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 7 January 2016 at 15:55, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 20 December 2015 at 05:43, Peter Crosthwaite
>> <crosthwaitepe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> + for (i = 0; i < XLNX_ZYNQMP_NUM_SPIS; i++) {
>>> + char bus_name[6];
>>> +
>>> + object_property_set_bool(OBJECT(&s->spi[i]), true, "realized",
>>> &err);
>>> +
>>> + sysbus_mmio_map(SYS_BUS_DEVICE(&s->spi[i]), 0, spi_addr[i]);
>>> + sysbus_connect_irq(SYS_BUS_DEVICE(&s->spi[i]), 0,
>>> + gic_spi[spi_intr[i]]);
>>> +
>>> + /* Alias controller SPI bus to the SoC itself */
>>> + snprintf(bus_name, 6, "spi%d", i);
>>
>> I don't much like these hard coded 6s. This is in init which
>> isn't a hot path, so the simplest thing is to use g_strdup_printf()
>> and then g_free() it when we're done.
>>
>> Similarly in patch 6.
>>
>> Otherwise I like this; I did a quick tweak to my sd card patchset
>> to use this approach and it seems to at least compile and do
>> the right thing in info qtree (I don't have a xilinx test image
>> to do more).
>>
>> Haven't looked at the detail of how we're doing this in patch 1 yet.
>
> Hi Peter (and/or Alistair) -- do you have time to do a quick respin
> of this patchset to use g_strdup_printf() in these cases? It would
> be nice to get this series into the tree, because my sd card rework
> patchset depends on it...
Yep! I'll do it now.
Thanks,
Alistair
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
