From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:35:58 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v9 01/21] ACPI / table: Use pr_debug() instead of pr_info() for MADT table scanning In-Reply-To: <1425673876.12017.50.camel@perches.com> References: <1424853601-6675-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1424853601-6675-2-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150306201718.9363CC40AA9@trevor.secretlab.ca> <1425673876.12017.50.camel@perches.com> Message-ID: <54FE588E.4030406@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2015?03?07? 04:31, Joe Perches wrote: > On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 20:17 +0000, Grant Likely wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:39:41 +0800 Hanjun Guo wrote: >>> This patch just use pr_debug() instead of pr_info() for ioapic/iosapic, >>> local apic/x2apic/sapic structures when scanning the MADT table to remove >>> those verbose information, but leave other structures unchanged. > [] >> One nitpick below, but don't respin over this, and don't do a fixup. > [] >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c > [] >>> @@ -61,9 +63,9 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header) >>> { >>> struct acpi_madt_local_apic *p = >>> (struct acpi_madt_local_apic *)header; >>> - pr_info("LAPIC (acpi_id[0x%02x] lapic_id[0x%02x] %s)\n", >>> - p->processor_id, p->id, >>> - (p->lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) ? "enabled" : "disabled"); >>> + pr_debug("LAPIC (acpi_id[0x%02x] lapic_id[0x%02x] %s)\n", >>> + p->processor_id, p->id, >>> + (p->lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) ? "enabled" : "disabled"); >> >> The whitespace changes makes each 1 line change into 3 line changes. In >> these situations, I would chose to leave the whitespace alone to keep >> the diffstat as small as possible. It makes it less likely to conflict >> with other patches and easier to find context. > > I think it's mostly better to use a consistent indentation style > regardless of the number in whitespace changes surrounding the change. I think both would be fine. Since this patch only touches acpi core code and ACPI maintainer Rafael already acked it, I will keep it as it is. Thanks Hanjun