From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rgroner@rtd.com (Rob Groner)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:37:07 -0400
Subject: single, comprehensive kernel data types document?
In-Reply-To: <20160415201538.GA19579@kroah.com>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1604150801170.6570@localhost.localdomain>
	<20160415122724.GA7389@kroah.com> <20160415155909.GA13082@osadl.at>
	<20160415161832.GA25094@kroah.com>
	<16162.1460740039@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20160415201538.GA19579@kroah.com>
Message-ID: <1461184627.2053.6.camel@rtd-VirtualBox>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

Sorry if this isn't related, it seemed like it was...

I recently discovered one of our drivers isn't written correctly for
64-bit.  It uses a uint32_t to hold an address. Whoops.

In previous drivers when I've needed to hold an address, I've used an
"unsigned long", as (so far as I could tell) that would give me the
correct number of bytes whether on 32 or 64-bit systems.

Now that I have to fix this driver, I'd rather do whatever the
"standard" method is for storing an address value.

Looking at code in the kernel and linux/types.h, I see "phys_addr_t and
dma_addr_t.  Is that what I want to use?  What if it's a virtual
address?  void *?

Thanks.

Rob