fw_rev_major and fw_rev_minor are defined as int.
Use %d to print them.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]>
---
drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
index c0d07ee..e1fbbf6 100644
--- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
+++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ static void pcipcwd_show_card_info(void)
got_fw_rev = send_command(CMD_GET_FIRMWARE_VERSION, &fw_rev_major,
&fw_rev_minor);
if (got_fw_rev)
- sprintf(fw_ver_str, "%u.%02u", fw_rev_major, fw_rev_minor);
+ sprintf(fw_ver_str, "%d.%02d", fw_rev_major, fw_rev_minor);
else
sprintf(fw_ver_str, "<card no answer>");
--
2.10.1
On 11/05/2016 07:50 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> fw_rev_major and fw_rev_minor are defined as int.
> Use %d to print them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> index c0d07ee..e1fbbf6 100644
> --- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ static void pcipcwd_show_card_info(void)
> got_fw_rev = send_command(CMD_GET_FIRMWARE_VERSION, &fw_rev_major,
> &fw_rev_minor);
> if (got_fw_rev)
> - sprintf(fw_ver_str, "%u.%02u", fw_rev_major, fw_rev_minor);
> + sprintf(fw_ver_str, "%d.%02d", fw_rev_major, fw_rev_minor);
> else
> sprintf(fw_ver_str, "<card no answer>");
>
>
Hmm ... I don't think that a negative version number makes much sense.
Turns out inb() returns a char on some architectures, meaning it is signed,
meaning it _could_ return a negative number if the version number is 128
or above. I don't want to risk us reporting version number -128.-110 just
to make compilers happy.
Guenter
On 11/05/2016 04:29 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/05/2016 07:50 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> fw_rev_major and fw_rev_minor are defined as int.
>> Use %d to print them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
>> index c0d07ee..e1fbbf6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
>> @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ static void pcipcwd_show_card_info(void)
>> got_fw_rev = send_command(CMD_GET_FIRMWARE_VERSION, &fw_rev_major,
>> &fw_rev_minor);
>> if (got_fw_rev)
>> - sprintf(fw_ver_str, "%u.%02u", fw_rev_major, fw_rev_minor);
>> + sprintf(fw_ver_str, "%d.%02d", fw_rev_major, fw_rev_minor);
>> else
>> sprintf(fw_ver_str, "<card no answer>");
>>
>>
> Hmm ... I don't think that a negative version number makes much sense.
> Turns out inb() returns a char on some architectures, meaning it is signed,
> meaning it _could_ return a negative number if the version number is 128
> or above. I don't want to risk us reporting version number -128.-110 just
> to make compilers happy.
send_command uses inb_p to read single bytes.
The signature of inb_p is
u8 inb_p(unsigned long addr)
So fw_rev_major and fw_rev_minor should always be
in the range of 0..255.
Regards
Heinrich
Hi All,
> On 11/05/2016 07:50 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >fw_rev_major and fw_rev_minor are defined as int.
> >Use %d to print them.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]>
> >---
> > drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> >index c0d07ee..e1fbbf6 100644
> >--- a/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> >+++ b/drivers/watchdog/pcwd_pci.c
> >@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ static void pcipcwd_show_card_info(void)
> > got_fw_rev = send_command(CMD_GET_FIRMWARE_VERSION, &fw_rev_major,
> > &fw_rev_minor);
> > if (got_fw_rev)
> >- sprintf(fw_ver_str, "%u.%02u", fw_rev_major, fw_rev_minor);
> >+ sprintf(fw_ver_str, "%d.%02d", fw_rev_major, fw_rev_minor);
> > else
> > sprintf(fw_ver_str, "<card no answer>");
> >
> >
> Hmm ... I don't think that a negative version number makes much sense.
> Turns out inb() returns a char on some architectures, meaning it is signed,
> meaning it _could_ return a negative number if the version number is 128
> or above. I don't want to risk us reporting version number -128.-110 just
> to make compilers happy.
I couldn't have said this better myself :-) version info is indeed to be consider as an unsigned int.
Kind regards,
Wim.