On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:30:58 +0200 Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message 1304089126-11945-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com you wrote:
The compatible property for the L2 cache node (on 85xx systems that don't have a CPC) was using a value for the property length that did not match the actual length of the property.
Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi timur@freescale.com
arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c | 13 +++++++------ 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c index 642f6c5..a3a4b65 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c @@ -165,7 +165,6 @@ static inline void ft_fixup_l2cache(void *blob) int len, off; u32 *ph; struct cpu_type *cpu = identify_cpu(SVR_SOC_VER(get_svr()));
char compat_buf[38];
const u32 line_size = 32; const u32 num_ways = 8;
@@ -192,22 +191,24 @@ static inline void ft_fixup_l2cache(void *blob) }
if (cpu) {
char compat_buf[40];- if (isdigit(cpu->name[0])) len = sprintf(compat_buf,
"fsl,mpc%s-l2-cache-controller", cpu->name);
"fsl,mpc%s-l2-cache-controller" "%c" "cache",cpu->name, 0);This is a somewhat funny and complicated way of writing
"fsl,mpc%s-l2-cache-controller\0cache"
Except that his version works and your version doesn't. With your version sprintf will stop reading the format string after "controller".
which, when written in plain text, reveals what sort of trickery you are doing here.
This code is a dirty hack, and I will not accept it.
The alternative is two separate sprintfs, manually advancing the pointer in the calling code, but that's a bit more complicated and error-prone (the previous code did it that way, and had an error, thus this patch) and IMHO not more readable.
-Scott