[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081006125334.GA19412@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:53:34 -0400
From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/76] serial: Make uart_port's ioport "unsigned long".
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 05:07:41PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>
>Otherwise the top 32-bits of the resource value get chopped
>off on 64-bit systems, and the resulting I/O accesses go to
>random places.
>
>Thanks to testing and debugging by Josip Rodin, which helped
>track this down.
>
>Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>
>---
>
> include/linux/serial_core.h | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/include/linux/serial_core.h b/include/linux/serial_core.h
>index 3b2f6c0..e27f216 100644
>--- a/include/linux/serial_core.h
>+++ b/include/linux/serial_core.h
>@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ typedef unsigned int __bitwise__ upf_t;
>
> struct uart_port {
> spinlock_t lock; /* port lock */
>- unsigned int iobase; /* in/out[bwl] */
>+ unsigned long iobase; /* in/out[bwl] */
Does using resource_size_t make more sense here? There are
32-bit CPUs that have 64-bit address spaces. (Perhaps not
that use iobase, but it might be cleaner in general.)
josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists