From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753090Ab0BWPBu (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:01:50 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:55681 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752520Ab0BWPBt (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:01:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:01:41 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Kumar Gala Cc: hjk@linutronix.de, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" Subject: Re: UIO support for >32-bit physical addresses on 32-bit platforms Message-ID: <20100223150140.GA3781@suse.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 08:54:16AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > Hans, Greg, > > We are looking at using UIO for some driver work and noticed it > assumes the address for MMIO regions is an 'unsigned long'. This is a > problem for the platforms we have in which we support a 36-bit > physical address in a 32-bit machine. > > Should we just change addr/size in struct uio_mem to u64 always? At > first I was thinking phys_addr_t but realized the addr could be PHYS, > LOGICAL, or VIRTUAL. I think that would work out fine, Hans, any ideas if this would cause any problems with existing code or not? thanks, greg k-h