On 8/28/25 12:31 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:24 PM Danilo Krummrich <d...@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> Maybe I spoke too soon, it's actually pretty painful to keep 32-bit >> compatibility, even though it would be nice for testing purposes. >> >> I'll paste the diff to fix it below, I think that makes it obvious why I say >> that. >> >> Instead, we should really just depend on CONFIG_64BIT (which implies >> ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT).
Yes yes yes. :) > > Yeah, it isn't great. > > If it were just that, maybe it it is worth it (and a `DmaAddress` > newtype, not just a typedef, could perhaps be nice anyway?), but if > you think it will become increasingly painful later, then it may be Oh yes, this is just the tip of the iceberg. > best to focus on what matters. > > It is unlikely there is going to be actual users on a 32-bit platform, right? Completely not going to happen, actually. The Open RM driver dropped support for 32-bit platforms in *2018*, and Nova and Open RM have...a relationship. For example, they use the same identical firmware (GSP etc). And so it is inconceivable that we would attempt 32-bit support in Nova. So Nova should definitely depend upon 64-bit configs. thanks, -- John Hubbard
