Re: clean way to support >32bit addr on 32bit CPU

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> 
>>Speaking of fall-out, or more like trickle-down,
>>I'm almost done with a patch to make PCMCIA resources use
>>unsigned long instead of u_int or u_short for IO address:
> 
> Ahh, yes. That's required on pretty much all platforms except x86 and
> x86-64.

OK, I don't get it, sorry.  What's different about ARM & MIPS here
(for PCMCIA)?  Is this historical (so that I'm just missing it)
or is it a data types difference?

> Of course, since ARM and MIPS already do the "u_int" thing, and not a 
> whole lot of other architectures do PCMCIA, I guess it doesn't matter 
> _that_ much. Cardbus stuff should get it right regardless.
> 
> 
>>typedef unsigned long	ioaddr_t;
>>
>>and then include/pcmcia/cs.c needs some changes in use of
>>ioaddr_t, along with drivers (printk formats).
>>
>>Does that sound OK?
>>I guess that it would become unsigned long long (or u64)
>>with this proposal?
> 
> 
> I don't think ioaddr_t needs to match resources. None of the IO accessor
> functions take "u64"s anyway - and aren't likely to do so in the future
> either - so "unsigned long" should be good enough.

Thanks,
-- 
~Randy