> > 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.