[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170113120614.GE3253@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:06:14 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
miles.chen@...iatek.com, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, wsd_upstream@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/mm: use phys_addr_t
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:45:54AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:27:48AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 13 January 2017 at 11:22, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 01:59:35PM +0800, miles.chen@...iatek.com wrote:
> > >> From: Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>
> > >>
> > >> Use phys_addr_t instead of unsigned long for the
> > >> return value of __pa(), make code easy to understand.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Miles Chen <miles.chen@...iatek.com>
> > >
> > > This looks sensible to me. It's consistent with the types these
> > > variables are compared against, and with the types of function
> > > parameters these are passed as.
> > >
> >
> > Indeed. But doesn't it clash with Laura's series?
>
> Good point.
>
> Yes, but only for the RHS of the assignment changing. This'll need to be
> rebased atop of the arm64 for-next/core branch, or Catalin/Will might
> fix it up when applying, perhaps?
Yeah, it's dead easy for me to fix up.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists