From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B254DE084 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:20:24 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] atyfb: Fix 64 bits resources on 32 bits archs From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Sergei Shtylyov In-Reply-To: <480E07BC.3050107@ru.mvista.com> References: <20080422012726.42775DE2A3@ozlabs.org> <480E07BC.3050107@ru.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:20:06 +1000 Message-Id: <1208902806.9640.136.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Andrew Morton , linux-fbdev-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adaplas@gmail.com Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 19:43 +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Not sure what that change gives us -- this function mostly treats 'addr' > as unsigned long (casting it to char/void *), ot compares it to 'unsigned > long' 'base' variable -- which should be made 'resource_size_t' in its turn > being assigned resource's start value. So, this part of patch looks incomplete > (and yet I'm not sure if SPARC really needs all that)... I just wanted to make sure both setup functions has the same prototype. I think sparc doesn't need fixing in there. Ben.