From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752585AbeENLEx (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2018 07:04:53 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:2609 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752101AbeENLEw (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 May 2018 07:04:52 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,399,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="224052945" Message-ID: <29a254ac8f40ef4127d998f25c29d24d4a4f611e.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/io: Define readq()/writeq() to use 64-bit type From: Andy Shevchenko To: Thomas Gleixner , Andy Shevchenko Cc: "H . Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , Linux Kernel Mailing List Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 14:04:49 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <20180503102810.59657-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.1-2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > 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 Intel Finland Oy