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

Randy.Dunlap
2005-01-11T00:41:47Z

Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Dave wrote:
>
>>After all said and done, the struct resource members start and end
>>must support 64bit integer values in order to work. On a 64bit arch
>>that would be fine since unsigned long is 64bit. However on a 32bit
>>arch one must use unsigned long long to get 64bit.
>
>
> We really should make "struct resource" use u64's. It's wrong even on x86,
> but we've never seen any real problems in practice, so we've had little
> reason to bother.
>
> This has definitely come up before, maybe there's even some old patch
> floating around. It should be as easy as just fixing up "start/end" to be
> "u64" (and perhaps move them to the beginning of the struct to make sure
> packing is ok on all architectures), and fixing any fall-out.

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:

incluce/pcmcia/cs_types.h:
#if defined(__arm__) || defined(__mips__)
typedef u_int ioaddr_t;
#else
typedef u_short ioaddr_t;
#endif

becomes:
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?

--
~Randy