Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 15:34:46 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Rahul Tanwar <rtanwar@maxlinear.com>
Cc:     "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "robh@kernel.org" <robh@kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        "dirk.brandewie@gmail.com" <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>,
        "grant.likely@secretlab.ca" <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
        "sodaville@linutronix.de" <sodaville@linutronix.de>,
        "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" 
        <devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-lgm-soc <linux-lgm-soc@maxlinear.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86/of: Add support for boot time interrupt
 delivery mode configuration
Message-ID: <Y3Tm9htYb1fwyRXH@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <cover.1668589253.git.rtanwar@maxlinear.com>
 <9114810c7af7fbaf9d0b2823752afcef865bdda0.1668589253.git.rtanwar@maxlinear.com>
 <Y3S+lLzcmytKHLRq@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <7efa66ec-8aa7-d44f-fae3-ee4f82d8f157@maxlinear.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7efa66ec-8aa7-d44f-fae3-ee4f82d8f157@maxlinear.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:25:47AM +0000, Rahul Tanwar wrote:
> On 16/11/2022 6:42 pm, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 06:28:20PM +0800, Rahul Tanwar wrote:

...

> > Why not pr_notice() in both cases?
> 
> Reset of the file uses printk(KERN_xxx ""). In v1, i used pr_notice() 
> but on reviewing again found it to be odd one out in the file. So 
> switched to printk(KERN_xxx ""). I can revert back to using pr_notice() 
> if you think that's a better fit. Thanks.

I don;t know why we should use antique style of printing APIs in new patches.
Even if the old code uses that, you can create a followup that can do two
things:
- uses pr_lvl() instead of printk(KERN_LVL)
- keeps string literals unbroken between the lines (if any
  of such breakage exists)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko