On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:16 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Palmer,
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:11 PM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> wrote:
> > It looks like the difference in prototype between the architectures is
> > between
> >
> > void __iomem *ioremap(resource_size_t, size_t)
> > void __iomem *ioremap(phys_addr_t, size_t)
> > void __iomem *ioremap(phys_addr_t, unsigned long)
> > void __iomem *ioremap(unsigned long, unsigned long)
> >
> > shouldn't they all just be that first one? In other words, wouldn't it be
> > better to always provide the generic ioremap prototype and unify the ports
> > instead?
>
> Agreed. But I'd go for the second one.
Right, phys_addr_t is the correct type here, resource_size_t is just a generic
type that is at least as long as any resource, and usually the same as
phys_addr_t, which is supposed to be used for physical addresses.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
linux-snps-arc mailing list
linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
