Re: [PATCH v2] x86/io: Define readq()/writeq() to use 64-bit type

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 09:12 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de
> > > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 3 May 2018, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > > 
> > > > -build_mmio_read(readq, "q", unsigned long, "=r", :"memory")
> > > > -build_mmio_read(__readq, "q", unsigned long, "=r", )
> > > > -build_mmio_write(writeq, "q", unsigned long, "r", :"memory")
> > > > -build_mmio_write(__writeq, "q", unsigned long, "r", )
> > > > +build_mmio_read(readq, "q", unsigned long long, "=r",
> > > > :"memory")
> > > > +build_mmio_read(__readq, "q", unsigned long long, "=r", )
> > > > +build_mmio_write(writeq, "q", unsigned long long, "r",
> > > > :"memory")
> > > > +build_mmio_write(__writeq, "q", unsigned long long, "r", )
> > > 
> > > What's wrong with u64 which we use for expressing io access to a
> > > 64bit wide
> > > resource?
> > 
> > Same answer as per v1, i.e. I would like to be consistent with other
> > types in this file (unsigned int for readl() and similar for the
> > rest).
> > If we would need them, we might change at once for all accessors.
> 
> I don;t think we need to fixup everything in one go. Having the patch
> which
> addresses the issue at hand first using u64 makes a lot of sense on
> its own.
> 
> Changing the other instances can be done as a follow up patch. Having
> explicit with types for such kind of accessors makes a lot of sense.

OK, I will re-do it this way.
Thanks for review!

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy