Re: [PATCH] Make PFN_PHYS return a properly-formed physical address

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:45:12 -0700
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Shall we go with just using plain u64 (or unsigned long long if we want 
>> a really consistent type) in the meantime, and then waffle about 
>> introducing a new type everywhere?
>>
>> Or we could redefine resource_size_t to be big enough to refer to any 
>> resource, including all memory.  It's close to being that anyway.
>>     
>
> We could do
>
> 	typedef resource_size_t jeremy_thing_t;
>
> for now and worry about it later if the need arises, perhaps.
>   

OK, I'll revise and repost.

Hm, curiously, the two arches which care most about this issue (x86 and 
powerpc) already have phys_addr_t...

I guess we don't want CONFIG_ARCH_HAVE_PHYS_ADDR_T...

    J