From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751941AbeA2PpF (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:45:05 -0500 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:15006 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751387AbeA2PpE (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Jan 2018 10:45:04 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,431,1511856000"; d="scan'208";a="15229676" Message-ID: <1517240701.7000.1302.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86/io: Define readq()/writeq() to use 64-bit type From: Andy Shevchenko To: hpa@zytor.com, "Mehta, Sohil" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@redhat.com" , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Cc: "mitake@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp" Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:45:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1516696324.7000.1185.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20180119143322.16555-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1516667578.153063.78.camel@intel.com> <1516696324.7000.1185.camel@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.3-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 10:32 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 16:46 -0800, hpa@zytor.com wrote: > > On January 22, 2018 4:32:14 PM PST, "Mehta, Sohil" > > wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 16:33 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > +build_mmio_read(readq, "q", unsigned long long, "=r", > > > > :"memory") > > > > +build_mmio_read(__readq, "q", unsigned long long, "=r", ) > > > > +build_mmio_write(writeq, "q", unsigned long long, "r", > > > > :"memory") > > > > +build_mmio_write(__writeq, "q", unsigned long long, "r", ) > > > The patch works for me: > > > Tested-by: Sohil Mehta > > Wouldn't simply u64 make more sense? > It would break a common style used in this module for the rest of > accessors. > So, I prefer to go with unsigned long long and change later, if > needed, > from POD types to uNN ones in entire file. So, Peter, Ingo, Thomas, can we move forward with this one? -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy