On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 09:12 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 13 May 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > > On Thu, 3 May 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > > > > > > > > -build_mmio_read(readq, "q", unsigned long, "=r", :"memory") > > > > -build_mmio_read(__readq, "q", unsigned long, "=r", ) > > > > -build_mmio_write(writeq, "q", unsigned long, "r", :"memory") > > > > -build_mmio_write(__writeq, "q", unsigned long, "r", ) > > > > +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", ) > > > > > > What's wrong with u64 which we use for expressing io access to a > > > 64bit wide > > > resource? > > > > Same answer as per v1, i.e. I would like to be consistent with other > > types in this file (unsigned int for readl() and similar for the > > rest). > > If we would need them, we might change at once for all accessors. > > I don;t think we need to fixup everything in one go. Having the patch > which > addresses the issue at hand first using u64 makes a lot of sense on > its own. > > Changing the other instances can be done as a follow up patch. Having > explicit with types for such kind of accessors makes a lot of sense.
OK, I will re-do it this way. Thanks for review! -- Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Intel Finland Oy
