[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1516696324.7000.1185.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:32:04 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: hpa@...or.com, "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp" <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86/io: Define readq()/writeq() to use 64-bit type
On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 16:46 -0800, hpa@...or.com wrote:
> On January 22, 2018 4:32:14 PM PST, "Mehta, Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.
> com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 16:33 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > +build_mmio_read(readq, "q", unsigned long long, "=r", :"memory")
> > > +build_mmio_read(__readq, "q", unsigned long long, "=r", )
> > > +build_mmio_write(writeq, "q", unsigned long long, "r", :"memory")
> > > +build_mmio_write(__writeq, "q", unsigned long long, "r", )
> > >
> > > #define readq_relaxed(a) __readq(a)
> > > #define writeq_relaxed(v, a) __writeq(v, a)
> >
> > The patch works for me:
> >
> > Tested-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
> >
> Wouldn't simply u64 make more sense?
It would break a common style used in this module for the rest of
accessors.
So, I prefer to go with unsigned long long and change later, if needed,
from POD types to uNN ones in entire file.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists