On 4 October 2012 20:05, Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote: > Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> writes: >> They can all be 64 bits, I'm just considering types. Getting rid of >> target_phys_addr_t, pcibus_t, pio_addr_t and dma_addr_t (are there >> more?) may be also worthwhile. > > Where this breaks down is devices that are DMA capable but may exist on > multiple busses. > > So you either end up with a device-specific type and a layer of casting > or weird acrobatics. > > It makes more sense IMHO to just treat bus addresses as a fixed with. > > target_phys_addr_t is a bad name. I'd be in favor of either just using > uint64_t directly or having a generic dma_addr_t.
I agree that we only need one type; I think it's helpful to have a type name rather than direct use of uint64_t. dma_addr_t doesn't seem right because most of the usage of it isn't going to be in DMA related contexts. addr_t ? -- PMM
