On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 10:32 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, 2018-01-22 at 16:46 -0800, h...@zytor.com wrote: > > On January 22, 2018 4:32:14 PM PST, "Mehta, Sohil" > > <sohil.me...@intel.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-01-19 at 16:33 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > +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", )
> > > The patch works for me: > > > Tested-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.me...@intel.com> > > Wouldn't simply u64 make more sense? > It would break a common style used in this module for the rest of > accessors. > So, I prefer to go with unsigned long long and change later, if > needed, > from POD types to uNN ones in entire file. So, Peter, Ingo, Thomas, can we move forward with this one? -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
