From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lixom.net (lixom.net [66.141.50.11]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6DADDE00 for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:09:18 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:11:48 -0500 From: Olof Johansson To: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t Message-ID: <20070922151148.GA19776@lixom.net> References: <20070905142742.GA1760@lixom.net> <20070914034854.1658a9cf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070921221516.GA7926@lixom.net> <20070921233936.2aeb2504@the-village.bc.nu> <20070922062551.GE10625@parisc-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070922062551.GE10625@parisc-linux.org> Cc: linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Andrew Morton , hch@lst.de, Alan Cox List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:25:51AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500 > > Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > > Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with > > > more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc). > > > > What about the formatting and field widths ? > > > > ulong would probably be a lot saner than kio_addr_t and yet more type > > obfuscation. > > I don't think anyone uses ioports > 32bit. Certainly i386 takes an int > port as parameter to {in,out}[bwl] (and it really only uses 16-bits). > parisc uses 24 bits. I don't know what the various ppcs do, but pci > bars can only be 32-bit for ioports. So my opinion is that ioports > should be uint, not ulong. PPC would do just fine with 32-bit as well, which is what I wanted in the first place. I just went with the local coding standard of pcmcia and switched to kio_addr_t. I suppose it's a janitorial todo item but with the maintainer MIA I don't want to mess around with it too much, since I can't really test much besides the PPC stuff I have. As for the formatting/padding widths: Some platforms had ioaddr_t's that were 32 bit already, so it was already broken on those, and the only drawback is missing 0-padding. It'd look a bit silly to pad to 16 0:s anyway at the moment, so I think I'd prefer to keep it the way it is. -Olof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756409AbXIVPJZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:09:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752740AbXIVPJS (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:09:18 -0400 Received: from lixom.net ([66.141.50.11]:41703 "EHLO mail.lixom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751907AbXIVPJR (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:09:17 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:11:48 -0500 From: Olof Johansson To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Alan Cox , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Andrew Morton , linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t Message-ID: <20070922151148.GA19776@lixom.net> References: <20070905142742.GA1760@lixom.net> <20070914034854.1658a9cf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070921221516.GA7926@lixom.net> <20070921233936.2aeb2504@the-village.bc.nu> <20070922062551.GE10625@parisc-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070922062551.GE10625@parisc-linux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 12:25:51AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:39:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:15:16 -0500 > > Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > > Convert the io_req_t members to kio_addr_t, to allow use on machines with > > > more than 16 bits worth of IO ports (i.e. secondary busses on ppc64, etc). > > > > What about the formatting and field widths ? > > > > ulong would probably be a lot saner than kio_addr_t and yet more type > > obfuscation. > > I don't think anyone uses ioports > 32bit. Certainly i386 takes an int > port as parameter to {in,out}[bwl] (and it really only uses 16-bits). > parisc uses 24 bits. I don't know what the various ppcs do, but pci > bars can only be 32-bit for ioports. So my opinion is that ioports > should be uint, not ulong. PPC would do just fine with 32-bit as well, which is what I wanted in the first place. I just went with the local coding standard of pcmcia and switched to kio_addr_t. I suppose it's a janitorial todo item but with the maintainer MIA I don't want to mess around with it too much, since I can't really test much besides the PPC stuff I have. As for the formatting/padding widths: Some platforms had ioaddr_t's that were 32 bit already, so it was already broken on those, and the only drawback is missing 0-padding. It'd look a bit silly to pad to 16 0:s anyway at the moment, so I think I'd prefer to keep it the way it is. -Olof