[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1517240701.7000.1302.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:45:01 +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 Tue, 2018-01-23 at 10:32 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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", )
> > > 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.
So, Peter, Ingo, Thomas, can we move forward with this one?
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists