Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] i2c: i2c-core-acpi: Add i2c_acpi_dev_name()
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" <devel@acpica.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, andy@kernel.org,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
        Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>
References: <20210118003428.568892-1-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <20210118003428.568892-5-djrscally@gmail.com>
 <YAVSf7+iTPNYf5XS@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hUELtKc9CK=z47XQvSAAx=wTWvoVwP-PaMqugaXaCgZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210128090053.GE963@ninjato>
From:   Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7e7a8614-3cdb-e160-b10f-8aa0e11b15e5@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:15:50 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210128090053.GE963@ninjato>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 28/01/2021 09:00, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> There's a real danger of a memory leak, as the function name sounds very
>>> similar to dev_name() or acpi_dev_name() and those don't allocate
>>> memory. I'm not sure what a better name would be, but given that this
>>> function is only used in patch 6/7 and not in the I2C subsystem itself,
>>> I wonder if we should inline this kasprintf() call in the caller and
>>> drop this patch.
>> IMO if this is a one-off usage, it's better to open-code it.
> Sounds reasonable to me, too.
>
Just to clarify; "open-code" meaning inline it in the caller like
Laurent said, right?