On Mon 2025-04-07 18:46:47, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hello Petr, Daniel,
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 15:36:11 +0100
> Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue 2025-03-11 10:21:23, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> > > %pC and %pCn print the same string, and commit 900cca294425 ("lib/vsprintf:
> > > add %pC{,n,r} format specifiers for clocks") introducing them does not
> > > clarify any intended difference. It can be assumed %pC is a default for
> > > %pCn as some other specifiers do, but not all are consistent with this
> > > policy. Moreover there is now no other suffix other than 'n', which makes a
> > > default not really useful.
> > >
> > > All users in the kernel were using %pC except for one which has been
> > > converted. So now remove %pCn and all the unnecessary extra code and
> > > documentation.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Makes sense. Looks and works well, so:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Daniel, if I get it correctly, you have already taken the 1st patch.
> > Would you mind to take also this patch using the same tree, please?
> > Otherwise, we would need to coordinate pull requests in the upcoming
> > merge window ;-)
>
> I see none of these two patches in linux-next.
I see.
> Anything I should do? Resend? Or just wait a bit more?
Daniel, Rafael, Zhang, Lukasz,
would you like to take both patches via the linux-pm.git thermal tree?
Or should I take both patches via the printk tree?
Both ways work for me.
Best Regards,
Petr
