From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:52:40 +0000
Subject: Use of data types
In-Reply-To: <20100118134215.GB16182@darwin>
References: <2703439e1001180443t761947e0idc144ced64ca3a4f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100118134120.GB31345@pengutronix.de>
	<20100118134215.GB16182@darwin>
Message-ID: <20100118135240.GC2695@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:42:15PM +0100, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> El Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:41:20PM +0100 Uwe Kleine-K?nig ha dit:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:43:12PM +0900, Khushhua Mogambo wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >   I starting to port Linux kernel to my companies new ARM based
> > > SoC and development board.
> > > 
> > > Some of the regs is 16bits wide and some is 32bits width. I ask if
> > > my using u16 and u32 in place of 'unsigned short' and 'unsigned int'
> > > in the whole porting would be acceptable or not?
> > > 
> > > In different wording, using only u16 and u32 always is considered good
> > > quality or bad?
> > I prefer using u32 over int.  Still more if your register space isn't uniform.
> 
> ditto
> 
> how about using the C99 types uint32_t, ... in the kernel? 

You might want to read Documentation/CodingStyle chapter 5, which covers
some of these issues.