From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36766) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4tOG-0004DV-02 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:39:24 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4tOB-0005aC-SY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:39:23 -0500 Received: from mx4-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.25]:43839) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4tOB-0005Zr-LH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 11:39:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:39:17 -0500 (EST) From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <22021448.34105148.1449247157194.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1449232131-17317-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <566188D8.6010002@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] arm: soc-dma: use hwaddr instead of target_ulong in printf List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers > I don't think we've ever said "we should transition away from HWADDR_*", > but whether we should is an interesting question, which is why I asked. > Does retaining the format macros to go with the typedef give us > useful flexibility, or is it just confusing? I think it's confusing, but not enough to warrant a tree-wide search and replace. Paolo > (Also TARGET_FMT_plx, which is even more heavily used and now > rather out of step with the type name.) > > thanks > -- PMM >