From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 00/10] Add support for resource abstraction Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 13:41:11 +0100 Message-ID: <20180104124111.GE6671@lunn.ch> References: <20171226112359.5313-1-jiri@resnulli.us> <977652df-a0ed-d1a5-f299-1dc433ebd337@mellanox.com> <96389ae0-e038-8a26-84ea-0cf1b9fa0a05@cumulusnetworks.com> <0f861e90-63d3-2666-ef2d-0fc91beae957@mellanox.com> <48d2d512-6879-cbce-16a4-3413f6505c3d@cumulusnetworks.com> <21a4f75c-8819-0e3a-b3ab-807dcd44f6a9@mellanox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Ahern , Jiri Pirko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com, davem@davemloft.net, mlxsw@mellanox.com, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, michael.chan@broadcom.com, ganeshgr@chelsio.com, saeedm@mellanox.com, matanb@mellanox.com, leonro@mellanox.com, idosch@mellanox.com, jakub.kicinski@netronome.com, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, simon.horman@netronome.com, pieter.jansenvanvuuren@netronome.com, john.hurley@netronome.com, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com, linville@tuxdriver.com, gospo@broadcom.com, steven.lin1@broadcom.com, yuvalm@mellanox.com, ogerlitz@mellanox.com To: Arkadi Sharshevsky Return-path: Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:54065 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752117AbeADMlY (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jan 2018 07:41:24 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <21a4f75c-8819-0e3a-b3ab-807dcd44f6a9@mellanox.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Double word is 64 bit, dont understand why this is confusing. In an ASCI, the definition of a word can be quite flexible. I've seen designs using 14 bit words, since 14 bits was all that was needed to represent the data to be held. I've also seen a 16 bit word used to hold a signed value, with the binary point before the last nibble, so it could hold -2047.9375 to +2047.9375. I might have that wrong. It gave me a headache at the time, but the synthesizer had no such problems. Why not use u8, u16, u14, u32, u64, which we can all understand without confusion. Andrew