[Linaro-acpi] [PATCH v4 5/5] ACPI: Replace printk with pr_* in tables.c

[Sudeep Holla]

On 19/02/14 16:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 04:32:34 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 18/02/14 13:55, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>> This patch just do some clean up to replace printk with pr_*,
>>> no functional change.
>>>
>> Any particular reason for choosing just this file in this series ?
>> It seems but off-topic in this series. The printk format is same in almost all
>> other acpi files and it's better to change all or none for consistency.
> 
> Well, it's fine, I can put it into a different branch in any case. :-)
> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/acpi/tables.c |   51 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
>>> index 5837f85..97bc6df 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c
>>> @@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header)
>>>  		{
>>>  			struct acpi_madt_local_apic *p =
>>>  			    (struct acpi_madt_local_apic *)header;
>>> -			printk(KERN_INFO PREFIX
>>> -			       "LAPIC (acpi_id[0x%02x] lapic_id[0x%02x] %s)\n",
>>> +			pr_info(PREFIX "LAPIC (acpi_id[0x%02x] lapic_id[0x%02x] %s)\n",
>>
>> You can even get rid of PREFIX by defining pr_fmt instead.
> 
> But this is a good point.
> 
>> If the intention is to move to pr_* format it's better to have this as separate
>> patch and convert all of them.
> 
> Well, not really.  One file at a time is OK too.
> 
No what I meant was to convert all for consistency, not in a single patch.
As I was playing with regex for few minutes, with few patterns was able to fix
most(not all) of them. It even compiles :) for x86. But turns out to be a big
churn :( [43 files changed, 253 insertions(+), 329 deletions(-)]

Regards,
Sudeep