On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 09:47 +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > > Whoever looks at this would need to do some detective work, it does > seem > > like there must have been a reason to use a bitmask here... > > Changing bitmask to a value for IORESOURCE type is a risk. I agree on > Mark > that someone will complain on this. > > Could we consider to expand the usage of IORESOURCE_IO? Maybe we can > use it for both ISA/PCI and IO related in chip.
No, I agree with Russell. I would suggest changing the bitmask. However this can be done painlessly since the existing types don't change value so the existing code that checks bits is still correct in all cases we care about. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
