[PATCH] i2c: i2c-gpio: fix issue when DT node greater than 1

[Bo Shen]

Hi Jean Delvare,

On 10/10/2012 10:54, Bo Shen wrote:
>
> Hi Jean Delvare,
>
> On 9/19/2012 23:54, Jean Delvare wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:28:04 -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 09/18/2012 07:15 PM, Bo Shen wrote:
>>>> I add the debug info, and it give the following error without this
>>>> patch.
>>>>
>>>> --<8----------------------------------
>>>> adap->name = i2c-gpio-1
>>>> i2c-gpio i2c.2: using pins 30 (SDA) and 31 (SCL)
>>>> adap->name = i2c-gpio-1
>>>> i2c-gpio: probe of i2c.3 failed with error -16
>>>> -->8----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> With this patch, it successfully registered.
>>>> --<8----------------------------------
>>>> adap->name = i2c-gpio0
>>>> i2c-gpio i2c.2: using pins 30 (SDA) and 31 (SCL)
>>>> adap->name = i2c-gpio1
>>>> i2c-gpio i2c.3: using pins 90 (SDA) and 91 (SCL)
>>>> -->8----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yes, that explains why the registration fails, but not why this patch is
>>> the correct solution to the problem.
>>>
>>> The problematic code appears to be:
>>>
>>> snprintf(adap->name, sizeof(adap->name), "i2c-gpio%d", pdev->id);
>>>
>>> Instead, I think that should be something more like:
>>>
>>> adap->name = dev_name(&pdev->dev);
>>
>> strlcpy(adap->name, dev_name(&pdev->dev), sizeof(adap->name))
 >> if anything, as adap->name is a buffer, not a pointer.
>
> I am sorry for late. I have tested with DT, it works.
>
> Please send this patch to fix the issue.
> Thanks.

Ping?

Will you send this patch? Or, I send this patch and add your S.O.B, 
which do you prefer?

BRs,
Bo Shen

>>
>>> or perhaps:
>>>
>>> if (pdev->dev.of_node)
>>>    /* named will be based on DT node name */
>>>    adap->name = dev_name(&pdev->dev);
>>> else
>>>    snprintf(adap->name, sizeof(adap->name), "i2c-gpio%d", pdev->id);
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>