From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70113DDE0D for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:13:25 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:13:03 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pcmcia: Convert io_req_t to use kio_addr_t Message-ID: <20070922091303.GA12525@lst.de> 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, Olof Johansson , 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: > > 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. The kernel seems to mostly use int, sometimes uint. I never quite got why pcmcia had to have it's own strange typedef for them.